JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This Appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Judge, sustaining the objections raised by the Registry that the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an award passed by the Principal District Court, Madurai, to be not maintainable. Heard Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The appellant herein issued a notice under Section 10(3)(i) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Rights of Users) Act, 1962, for the purpose of laying a pipeline in the land belonging to the respondents herein. The appellant also paid a compensation of Rs. 1,933/-. 3. Aggrieved by the fixation of compensation at such a low level, the second respondent filed a petition in O.P. No. 3 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Madurai. This original petition was filed under Section 10(2) of the Central Act 15 of 1962. By a judgment dated 30.09.2010, the District Court allowed the petition and directed the appellant to pay compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for closure of well that was in the land of the second respondent. 4. Aggrieved by the award so passed by the District Judge, the appellant herein filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)SR. No. 59907 of 2010. The Registry raised objections as though a writ petition is not maintainable as against the award of this nature. The objection of the Registry was sustained by the learned Judge by an order dated 25.01.2011. Therefore/the appellant has come up with the above appeal. 5. The Central Act 50 of 1962 enables the Central Government to acquire the right of user in any land in which pipelines may be laid by the Government for the purpose of transportation of petroleum or any other minerals from one locality to another locality. But, whenever the rights of the land owner are affected or the land gets damaged on account of the exercise of the said power by the Government, the land owners are entitled to get the compensation. Section 10 of the Act speaks about the compensation. There is a two tire mechanism provided in Section 10 for the determination of the compensation. Under Section 10(1) of the Act, the compensation payable shall be determined by the competent authority. Section 10 of the Act speaks about the compensation. There is a two tire mechanism provided in Section 10 for the determination of the compensation. Under Section 10(1) of the Act, the compensation payable shall be determined by the competent authority. If the compensation so determined is not acceptable to any of the parties, the matter can be referred to the District Judge within whose local limits of jurisdiction, the land is situated. This reference is made under Section 10(2). 6. The other sub-Sections of Section 10 prescribe all procedures for determination of compensation by the District Judge. But once the District Judge determines the compensation, on an application under Section 10(2), the award passed by him attains finality. This is by virtue of sub-Section (6) of Section 10. Section 10 in entirety is extracted for useful reference as follows: "10. Compensation-(1) Where in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 4, section 7 or section 8 by any person, any damage, loss or injury is sustained by any person interested in the land under which the pipeline is proposed to be, or is being, or has been laid, the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay compensation to such person for such damage, loss or injury, the amount of which shall be determined by the competent authority in the first instance. (2) If the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of compensation shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, be determined by that District Judge. (2) If the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of compensation shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, be determined by that District Judge. (3) The competent authority or the District Judge while determining the compensation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall have due regard to the damage or loss sustained by any person interested in the land by reason of -- (i) the removal of trees or standing crops, if any, on the land while exercising the powers under section 4, section 7 or section 8; (ii) the temporary severance of the land under which the pipeline has been laid from other lands belonging to, or in the occupation of, such person; or (iii) any injury to any other property, whether movable or immovable, or the earnings of such persons caused in any other manner: Provided that in determining the compensation no account shall be taken of any structure or other improvement made in the land after the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3. (4) Where the right of user of any land has vested in the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, as the case may be, shall, in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-section (1), be liable to pay to the owner and to any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such vesting, compensation calculated at ten per cent of the market value of that land on the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3. (5) The market value of the land on the said date shall be determined by the competent authority and if the value so determined by that authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, it shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge referred to in sub-section (2), be determined by that District Judge. (6) The decision of the District Judge under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) shall be final. (6) The decision of the District Judge under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) shall be final. As a matter of fact, the civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 14. Therefore, the award passed by the District Judge on the application made under Section 10(2) cannot be challenged in a suit, but challenged only in a writ petition, even if the award is treated as equivalent to the award passed under Arbitration Act. Since the provisions of the Arbitration Act are not made applicable, the award of the Court cannot even be challenged under that Act. In such circumstances, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a writ petition. In view of the above, the objections raised by the Registry about the maintainability of the writ petition and sustained by the learned Judge, are not correct. Hence, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Judge is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. The Registry is directed to number the W.P. (MD) SR. No. 59907 of 2010 and post for admission before the appropriate Court.