Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Abdul Salam vs the Complete Authority Atf Pipe Line

Abdul Salam vs The Complete Authority Atf Pipe Line

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 19, 2023
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1372601

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(C)/6302/2010

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Salam

Respondent

The Complete Authority Atf Pipe Line

Excerpt

.....matthai (sr.) saji varghese t.g shameena salahudheenadmission on 19.01.2023, along with wp(c).6302/2010, the -3-p.v.kunhikrishnan, j.====================================================== ============================================================= dated this the 19th day of january, 2023judgmentthese writ petitions are connected and therefore, i am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. the petitioners are aggrieved for not paying compensation as per the petroleum and minerals pipelines (acquisition of right of user in land) act, 1962 (for short the act, 1962). the petitioner has got alternative remedy. if that is the case, these writ petitions need not be retained.2. the counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that themaintainability of that petition is also disputed. i don’t want to make any observation about the same. if the petitioner has got the right as per section 10 of the act, 1962, reserving that right, these writ petitions can be closed. -4- therefore these writ petitions are closed reserving the right of the petitioners to approach the competent authority (district court) as per section 10 of the act, 1962. i make it clear that the district court is free to pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, including the question of maintainability. sd/- p.v.kunhikrishnan judge das

Full Judgment

WP(C) NO. 6302 OF 2010 ABDUL SALAM S/O.MUHAMMED, KALATHIL HOUSE,VELIYATHUNAD,, U.C.COLLEGE, ALUVA. BY ADV SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER

1 THE COMPLETE AUTHORITY ATF PIPE LINE PROJECT, XX/105, LAKSHMI BUILDINGS, BHARAT, PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, TRIPUNITHURA. 2 ADDL R2. THE BHARART PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION,P.O.IRIMPANAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER .MR.T.PEETHAMBARAN (ADDL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17-3-2010 IN IA 3704/10. SRI.V.J.ANAND SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SMT.MARIAM MATHAI SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI SR. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE

OTHER PRESENT: SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR ADDL.R2 ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).37434/2009, THE -2-

WP(C) NO. 37434 OF 2009 1 MOHAMMAD MADANI.N.S., CHEMBIKATTIL HOUSE, VELIYATHUNADU, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA. 2 SEMIN RAFI, CHEMBIKATTIL HOUSE, VELIYATHUNADU, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA. 3 O.V.IBRAHIM , ONJAPPURAM WEST, VELIYATHUNAD, ALUVA. 4 BEEPATHU ,WO.IBRAHIM, ONJAPPURAM, WEST VELIYATHUNAD, ALUVA. BY ADV V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF 1 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY/THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ATF PIPE LINE PROJECT, BHARAT, PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., XX-105, 1ST FLOOR,, LAKSHMI BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA. 2 ADDL. THE BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION, P.O. IRIMPANAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER, MR.T.PEETHAMBARAN. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.02.2010 IN IA 1205/2010) K.JOHN MATHAI P.BENNY THOMAS P.GOPINATH (SR.) A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR MARIAM MATHAI E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SAJI VARGHESE T.G SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN

ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).6302/2010, THE -3-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

====================================================== ============================================================= Dated this the 19th day of January, 2023

JUDGMENT

These writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. The petitioners are aggrieved for not paying compensation as per the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short the Act, 1962). The petitioner has got alternative remedy. If that is the case, these writ petitions need not be retained.

2. The counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the

maintainability of that petition is also disputed. I don’t want to make any observation about the same. If the petitioner has got the right as per Section 10 of the Act, 1962, reserving that right, these writ petitions can be closed. -4- Therefore these writ petitions are closed reserving the right of the petitioners to approach the competent authority (District Court) as per Section 10 of the Act, 1962. I make it clear that the District Court is free to pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, including the question of maintainability. sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Abdul Salam vs The Complete Authority Atf Pipe Line Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales