1.  Since common issues arise in these Writ Petitions, I dispose of these Writ Petitions by a common judgment. In both these Writ Petitions, GAIL (India) Ltd. is the Petitioner. As part of its business, the Petitioner has been laying pipelines after obtaining the right of user in land according to the provisions under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the PMP Act’). The impugned Orders are Ext.P11 produced in W.P.(C) No.13664/2025 and Ext.P9 produced in W.P.(C) No.14191/2025, passed by the 1st respondent/Competent Authority under the PMP Act.

2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned Orders rejecting the Proforma Applications of the petitioner requesting the Competent Authority to file an Application under Section 9(3) of the PMP Act for the removal of constructions made by the landowners after the publication of the Declaration under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the Competent Authority has no right or authority to consider the claim by itself without filing an Application to the Court of District Judge under Section 9(3) of the PMP Act.

3. The 1st Respondent/Competent Authority has filed Counter Affidavits in both the Writ Petitions opposing the prayers in the Writ Petitions and asserting its authority to consider the claim before filing an Application to the Court of District Judge under Section 9(3) of the PMP Act.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. A.K. Preetha, and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri. Ajith Krishnan.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the petitioner makes a Proforma Application to the Competent Authority requesting to file an Application to the Court of District Judge under Section 9(3) of the PMP Act for removal of constructions made by the landowner after the date of publication of Section 6(1) Declaration, the Competent Authority has no right or authority to conduct an enquiry and verify the allegations to decide whether the Application is to be submitted by the Competent Authority to the District Court or not. The learned counsel pointed out that the powers of the Civil Court conferred on the Competent Authority under Section 12 of the PMP Act are only for the purpose of determination of the compensation under Section 10 of the PMP Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that it is well within the powers of the Competent Authority to conduct an enquiry to satisfy the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner before submitting the Application by it before the District Court. Such power is implicit under Section 12 of the PMP Act, which confers the power of the Civil Court to the Competent Authority. In this case, even going by the Proforma Applications submitted by the petitioner, the dates of the alleged constructions to be removed are before the date of the Section 6(1) Declaration under the PMP Act.

7. I have considered the rival contentions.

8. In the Proforma Applications produced in both these Writ Petitions, the date of construction is shown to have been made before the Section 6(1) Declaration. In these cases, Section 6(1) Declaration was published on 08.08.2013. In Proforma Applications in W.P.(C) Nos.13364 & 14191 of 2025, the year of construction is shown as 2010 and 2008 respectively. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there occurred a mistake while preparing the Proforma Applications. Instead of stating the year of the objected construction, the year of the original construction on the land was stated. The Mahazars and satellite images produced would show that the objected constructions were made subsequent to the Section 6(1) Declaration.

9. If the petitioner had made any mistake in the Proforma Application, the petitioner should have taken steps to correct the said mistake. No Application was submitted by the petitioner to the Competent Authority pointing out that the petitioner committed a mistake while preparing the Proforma Application and seeking correction of the same. The petitioner could have submitted an Application for rectification or correction or an application explaining the mistake before the 1st respondent. If the Proforma Application itself would reveal that the construction was made after publication of Section 6(1) Declaration, it is well within the competence of the 1st respondent to refuse to file the Application under Section 9(3) to Court of District Judge, as the said provision permits filing of Application by the Competent Authority for removal of construction made after the publication of Section 6(1) Declaration. But Section 6(1) of the PMP Act does not authorize the Competent Authority to conduct an enquiry as to the veracity of the allegations to decide whether the Application is to be submitted by it before the Court of District Judge under Section 9(3) of the PMP Act for removal of the construction objected to by the petitioner. It is within the jurisdiction of the Court of District Judge to conduct such an enquiry and decide whether the objected construction was made before the publication of the Section 6(1) Declaration for ordering removal of the same. The impugned Orders in both the Writ Petition would show that the Competent Authority conducted an enquiry and entered a finding that the construction was made before the publication of Section 6(1) Declaration. The impugned Orders are liable to be set aside on this score alone.

10. Of course certain powers of the Civil Court are conferred on the Competent Authority under Section 12 of the PMP Act, but those powers do not enable the Competent Authority to conduct an enquiry as to the veracity of the allegations in the Proforma Application to decide whether the Application is to be submitted by it before the Court of District Judge under Section 9(3) of the PMP Act for removal of the construction objected to by the petitioner. No preliminary enquiry whatsoever is contemplated under Section 9(3) of the PMP Act before submission of the Application to the Court of District Judge on receipt of a request for removal of objected construction.

11. Accordingly, I allow these Writ Petitions by issuing a Writ of Certiorari setting aside Ext.P11 Order in W.P.(C) No.13664/2025 and Ext.P9 Order in W.P.(C) No.14191/2025 and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the Proforma Applications submitted by the petitioner  afresh  in  the  light  of  the  observations contained herein, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is given liberty to seek correction of the Proforma Application.