Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010033042025 2026:GAU-AS:6689 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/127/2025 HOREN GOGOI S/O LATE KIRAN GOGOI, VILL- KANFALA CHAPRI GAON, P.O.- BADULIPAR, P.S.- KAMARGAON, MAUZA- RANGAMATI, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785611 VERSUS COURT OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY, INDRADHANUSH GAS GRID LIMITED (IGGL) AND 4 ORS. GUWAHATI - NUMALIGARH GAS PIPE LINE (NEPL) PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, CENTRAL MALL, CHRISTIAN BASTI, G.S ROAD, GUWAHATI-785005 2:THE MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION) GUWAHATI - NUMALIGARH GAS PIPE LINE (NEPL) PROJECT INDRADHANUSH GAS GRID LIMITED SPREAD - D HOTEL PRISM JORHAT-785001 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785621 4:CIRCLE OFFICER KHUMTAI REVENUE CIRCLE KHUMTAI DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785611 Page No.# 2/6 5:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BADULIPAR KHUMTAI DIST- GOLAGHAT PIN-78561 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B N GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. J ROY (R-1,2),MR. C CHAKRAVARTY(R- 1,2),MR B P SARMAH(R-1,2),B SAHA (R-1,2),MR D DAS(R-1,2),MR. S SARMA(R-1,2),MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY(R-1,2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 13.05.2026 Heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Roy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B.P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Govt. advocate appearing for respondent nos. 3 to 5. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner-cum- possessor of land measuring 4B-0K-7L, covered by Periodic Patta No. 57 and Dag Nos. 56 and 104 of Village Kanfalla Chapori Gaon, under Rangamati Mouza, Khumtai in the district of Golaghat. The right of way in respect of a part of the land was acquired by the respondent No.1-company for laying down an underground pipeline for transportation of natural gas. It has been submitted that in this case, the provision for acquisition of the right of way is governed by the provisions of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962 and rules framed thereunder. Page No.# 3/6 3. It would suffice to mention that as per the contents of the document annexed at page 112 of this application, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.5,99,794/- on 11.12.2021 in respect of land measuring 1B-2K-9L covered by Periodic Patta No. 57. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation paid, not only did the petitioner raise an objection before the Gaonburah but also made a prayer for reassessment of the compensation before the Circle Officer, Revenue Circle, Khumtai. The other communications made by the petitioner are not required to be referred to in this order. 4. It would suffice to mention that dissatisfied with the amount of compensation paid, the petitioner had initially filed Money Suit No. 7 of 2023 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Golaghat. As the copy of the plaint is not available, the nature of claim made is not disclosed before the Court. It would suffice to mention that the petitioner had filed Petition No. 1713 of 2023, purportedly under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for return of the plaint on the ground that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Golaghat did not have jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat by an order dated 09.02.2024, returned the plaint of M.S. No.7/2023 to the petitioner and refunded the ad-valorem Court fee for presentation of the plaint before the proper forum. 5. It is projected that a fresh Money Suit No. 1 of 2024 was filed before the Court of Additional District Judge, Golaghat. The copy of the plaint is annexed to this application at pages 40 to 96. On a perusal of the plaint of Money Suit No. 1 of 2024, which was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Golaghat, it does appear to be the same plaint which was returned by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Golaghat being Money Suit No. 7 of Page No.# 4/6 2023. 6. The case projected in the plaint is that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would apply and based on the stand taken in the said plaint, the petitioner has prayed for a decree in respect of damages to crop amounting to Rs.88,12,800/-; compensation for land amounting to Rs.7,32,60,000/- with interest @ 15%; and for a decree of cost of litigation amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- and other miscellaneous costs. 7. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that the plaint for Money Suit No. 1 of 2024, which was filed before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Golaghat was an application within the meaning of Section 10(2) & (3) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962 requiring determination of compensation by the District Judge as provided for. It may be further mentioned that along with the said plaint, the petitioner had also filed a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with a prayer for condoning the delay of 707 days beyond the period of limitation in the presentation of the suit. The learned Additional District Judge, Golaghat by an order dated 09.10.2024 rejected the said application for condonation of delay, which is assailed in this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In order to support the contention the Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Mukri Gopalan vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayilaboobacker, 1995 SCC (5) 5 and Omnakunjamma v. The Deputy Collector & Competent, decided by the Supreme Page No.# 5/6 Court of India on 28.02.2019 in CRP No. 586/2014. 9. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the suit was not maintainable for compensation and therefore, the adjudication, if any, could have been made only in exercise of power under Section 10(3) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962. It is further submitted that admittedly the petitioner has received the compensation amount without lodging any prior or simultaneous protest and that the protest was lodge long after the receipt of compensation. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the money has been received without initial protest, the suit itself was not maintainable. 10. In the considered opinion of the Court, the suit which is presented in the form of Money Suit No. 1 of 2024, is a money suit simpliciter and cannot be treated as an application for compensation within the meaning of Section 10(2) & (3) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962, by virtue of which if the compensation amount is not agreeable to the concerned parties, the District Judge would get jurisdiction, on an application, to determine the compensation. Under such circumstances, in a money suit simpliciter, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application. 11. The case of Mukri Gopalan vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayilaboobacker (supra), relates to filing of an appeal under the applicable Rent Control Act and therefore, this is not a case where a suit was filed with an application for condonation of delay. In the case of Omnakunjamma (supra), the paragraph nos. 1 and 2 of the said decision projects that it was an application for determination of compensation filed under Rule 5 of the Petroleum and Minerals Page No.# 6/6 Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963. Therefore, the applicability of the said judgment would only be in the case where determination is made by the competent authority, which in this case would be the District Judge. 12. Therefore, the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable in cases of a simpliciter suit for recovery of money. 13. Therefore, as the suit cannot be equated with an application for determination of compensation as envisaged in Section 10(2) & (3) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962, the Court finds no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 09.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Golaghat in Misc. (J) Case No.06/2024, arising out of Money Suit Case No. 01/2024. Therefore, the application fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 14. Before parting with the records, the Court is inclined to observe that this order shall not preclude the petitioner to avail an appropriate remedy, if so advised, in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant