JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the Competent Authority under the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 in connection with the laying of pipelines for the distribution of natural gas by M/s. GAIL (India) Ltd. has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction forbearing the II Addl. District Judge, Kozhikode from proceeding with O.P. No. 244 of 2019. The petitioner has also sought for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P1 petition in so far as the same proceeds with an assessment of land value under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the said Act, an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the II Addl. District Judge, Kozhikode to hear the maintainability of O.P. No. 244 of 2019 as a preliminary issue, within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court and a declaration that Ext.P1 has been filed without cause of action and hence liable to be rejected. 2. On 10.03.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued urgent notice to the 1st respondent by speed post. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 2nd respondent. This Court granted an interim order staying further proceedings in O.P. No. 244 of 2019 on the files of the II Addl. District Judge, Kozhikode. The said interim order is still in force. 3. The 1st respondent, the petitioner in O.P. No. 244 of 2019, has filed a counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The 2nd respondent, the Chief Manager of GAIL (India) Limited, has filed a statement through the learned Standing Counsel. 4. On 07.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record a copy of the award, which is subject matter of challenge in O.P. No. 244 of 2019, as additional document. 5. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of award bearing No. C-17/2018/KKZD/RAROTH/132-VELIMANNA (01) dated 12.04.2018, as Ext.P3, along with I.A. No. 1 of 2020. 6. 5. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of award bearing No. C-17/2018/KKZD/RAROTH/132-VELIMANNA (01) dated 12.04.2018, as Ext.P3, along with I.A. No. 1 of 2020. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 7. M/s. GAIL (India) Ltd. the 2nd respondent herein, is a Public Sector Undertaking in the field of processing and distribution of natural gas. Presently, the 2nd respondent is executing a project of Government of India to distribute natural gas from Kochi to Bangalore, at an estimated cost of Rs. 3,300/- crores. For the purpose of laying pipelines for the transportation of natural gas from Kochi to Bangalore, through Kottanad and Manglalore, the Central Government published notifications in the Official Gazette, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 declaring its intention to acquire the right of user of the land under which such pipelines may be laid. The petitioner herein is the Competent Authority authorised by the Central Government, under clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act, by notification in Official Gazette, to perform the functions of that Authority under the Act, in Kozhikode District. 8. Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for brevity ‘the Act’) was enacted by Parliament to provide for the acquisition of right of user in land for laying pipelines for the transport of petroleum and minerals and for matters connected therewith. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act define ‘competent authority’ to mean any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act and different persons or authorities may be authorised to perform all or any of the functions of the competent authority under this Act in the same area or different areas specified in the notification. As per clause (ba) of Section 2, the term ‘minerals’ have the meanings assigned to them in the Mines Act, 1952 and include mineral oils and stowing sand but do not include petroleum. As per clause (c), the term ‘petroleum’ has the same meaning as in the Petroleum Act, 1934 and includes natural gas and refinery gas. 9. As per clause (ba) of Section 2, the term ‘minerals’ have the meanings assigned to them in the Mines Act, 1952 and include mineral oils and stowing sand but do not include petroleum. As per clause (c), the term ‘petroleum’ has the same meaning as in the Petroleum Act, 1934 and includes natural gas and refinery gas. 9. Section 3 of the Act deals with publication of notification for acquisition. As per sub-section (1) of Section 3, whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum or any mineral from one locality to another locality pipelines may be laid by that Government or by any State Government or a corporation and that for the purpose of laying such pipelines it is necessary to acquire the right of user in any land under which such pipelines may be laid, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire the right of user therein. As per sub-section (2) of Section 3, every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land. As per sub-section (3), the competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published at such places and in such manner as may be prescribed. 10. Section 4 of the Act deals with power to enter, survey, etc. As per Section 4, on the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by the Central Government or by the State Government or the corporation which proposes to lay pipelines for transporting petroleum or any mineral, and his servants and workmen (a) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land specified in the notification; (b) to dig or bore into the sub-soil; (c) to set out the intended line of work; (d) to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; (e) where otherwise survey cannot be completed and levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle; and (f) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether pipelines can be laid under the land. As per the proviso to Section 4, while exercising any power under this section, such person or any servant or workman of such person shall cause as little damage or injury as possible to such land. 11. Section 5 of the Act deals with hearing of objections. As per sub-section (1) of Section 5, any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3, object to the laying of the pipelines under the land. As per sub-section (2) of Section 5, every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as the authority thinks necessary, by order either allow or disallow the objections. As per sub-section (3) of Section 5, any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final. 12. Section 6 of the Act deals with declaration of acquisition of right of user. As per sub-section (3) of Section 5, any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final. 12. Section 6 of the Act deals with declaration of acquisition of right of user. As per sub-section (1) of Section 6, where no objections under sub-section (1) of Section 5 have been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objections under sub-section (2) of that section, that authority shall, as soon as may be, either make a report in respect of the land described in the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the Central Government containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government and upon receipt of such report the Central Government shall, if satisfied that such land is required for laying any pipeline for the transport of petroleum or any mineral, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the right of user in the land for laying the pipelines should be acquired and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of the land described in the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3, irrespective of whether one report or different reports have been made by the competent authority under this section. As per sub-section (2) of Section 6, on the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the right of user in the land specified therein shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. As per sub-section (3) of Section 6, where in respect of any land, a notification has been issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 but no declaration in respect of any parcel of land covered by that notification has been published under this Section within a period of one year from the date of that notification, that notification shall cease to have effect on the expiration of that period. As per sub-section (3A) of Section 6, no declaration in respect of any land covered by a notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3, published after the commencement of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 1977, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such publication. As per sub-section (4) of Section 6, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Central Government may, on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to impose, direct by order in writing, that the right of user in the land for laying the pipelines shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government vest, either on the date of publication of the declaration or, on such other date as may be specified in the direction, in the State Government or the corporation proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall, subject to the terms and conditions so imposed, vest in that State Government or corporation, as the case may be, free from all encumbrances. 13. As per clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, where the right of user in any land has vested in the Central Government or in any State Government or corporation under Section 6, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by the Central Government or such State Government or corporation, as the case may be, and his servants and workmen to enter upon the land and lay pipelines or to do any other act necessary for the laying of pipelines. As per the proviso to clause (i), no pipeline shall be laid under (a) any land which, immediately before the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3, was used for residential purposes; (b) any land on which there stands any permanent structure which was in existence immediately before the said date; (c) any land which is appurtenant to a dwelling houses; or (d) any land at a depth which is less than one metre from the surface. 14. 14. As per clause (ia) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, for laying pipelines for the transport of petroleum, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by the Central Government or such State Government or corporation to use such land for laying pipelines for transporting any mineral and where the right of user in any land has so vested for laying pipelines for transporting any mineral, it shall be lawful for such person to use such land for laying pipelines for transporting petroleum or any other mineral. As per clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 7, such land shall be used only for laying pipelines and for maintaining, examining, repairing, altering or removing any such pipelines or for doing any other act necessary for any of the aforesaid purposes or for the utilisation of such pipelines. As per sub-section (2) of Section 7, if any dispute arises with regard to any matter referred to in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of the proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1), the dispute shall be referred to the competent authority whose decision thereon shall be final. 15. Section 8 of the Act deals with power to enter land for inspection, etc. As per Section 8, for maintaining, examining, repairing, altering or removing any pipeline, or for doing any other act necessary for the utilisation of the pipelines or for the making of any inspection or measurement for any of the aforesaid purposes, any person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, as the case may be, may, after giving reasonable notice to the occupier of the land under which the pipeline has been laid, enter therein with such workmen and assistants as may be necessary. As per the first proviso to Section 8, where such person is satisfied that an emergency exists, no such notice shall be necessary. As per the second proviso to Section 8, while exercising any powers under this section, such person or any workman or assistant of such person, shall cause as little damage or injury as possible to such land. 16. Section 9 of the Act deals with restrictions regarding the use of land. As per the second proviso to Section 8, while exercising any powers under this section, such person or any workman or assistant of such person, shall cause as little damage or injury as possible to such land. 16. Section 9 of the Act deals with restrictions regarding the use of land. As per sub-section (1) of Section 9, the owner or occupier of the land with respect to which a declaration has been made under sub-section (1) of Section 6, shall be entitled to use the land for the purpose for which such land was put to use immediately before the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 9, such owner or occupier shall not after the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6, (i) construct any building or any other structure; (ii) construct or excavate any tank, well, reservoir or dam; or (iii) plant any tree, on that land. As per sub-section (3) of Section 9, the owner or occupier of the land under which any pipeline has been laid shall not do any act or permit any act to be done which will or is likely to cause any damage in any manner whatsoever to the pipeline. As per sub-section (3) of Section 9, where the owner or occupier of the land with respect to which a declaration has been made under sub-section (1) of Section 6, (a) constructs any building or any other structure; or (b) constructs or excavates any well, tank, reservoir or dam; or (c) plants any tree, on that land, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situate may, on an application made to it by the competent authority and after holding such inquiry as it may deem fit, cause the building, structure, reservoir, dam or tree to be removed or the well or tank to be filled up, and the costs of such removal or filling up shall be recoverable from such owner or occupier in the same manner as if the order for the recovery of such costs were a decree made by that Court. 17. Section 10 of the Act deals with compensation. 17. Section 10 of the Act deals with compensation. As per sub-section (1) of Section 10, 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. As per sub-section (2) of Section 10, 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. 18. As per sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, 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. As per the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 10, 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. 19. As per the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 10, 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. 19. As per sub-section (4) of Section 10, 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. As per sub-section (5) of Section 10, 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. As per sub-section (6) of Section 10, the decision of the District Judge under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) shall be final. 20. As per Section 14 of the Act, which deals with bar of jurisdiction of civil courts, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the competent authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. As per Section 18, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force relating to acquisition of land. 21. As per Section 18, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force relating to acquisition of land. 21. In Petronet CCK Ltd. vs. Thresiamma and Another, 2012 (1) KHC 741 , this Court held that, sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act provides that the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay compensation to the person interested in the land for the damage, loss or injury sustained by him. The Competent Authority has to fix the compensation payable to the person interested in the land. If the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority is not acceptable to any party, he can approach the District Judge claiming enhancement and the District Judge shall determine the compensation payable. Sub-Section (4) of Section 10 provides for payment of compensation calculated at ten per cent of the market value of the land on the date of notification, if the right of user of the land has vested in the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be. The compensation at ten per cent of the market value of the land shall be in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-section (1). 22. In Petronet CCK Ltd. this Court noticed that, Section 18 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force relating to acquisition of land. This is a provision enabling the Government or the Corporation to acquire the land, if it becomes necessary. If such acquisition is made, the compensation payable to the owner of the land shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In such a situation, the owner of the land will be entitled to the market value of the land and all other items of compensation including compensation for diminution of land value. If such acquisition is made, the compensation payable to the owner of the land shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In such a situation, the owner of the land will be entitled to the market value of the land and all other items of compensation including compensation for diminution of land value. However, in the case of acquisition of the right of user of the land under the Act, there is no divestiture of the right or title of the land owner in respect of the whole of the land used for the purpose of laying pipelines. The land owner has to suffer only the restrictions imposed under the Act. For that purpose, he is paid compensation in accordance with the scheme of Section 10 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act would not apply, so long as the land is not acquired as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. 22. In Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya vs. State of Gujarat, 2016 (9) SCC 791 , the Apex Court held that, under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, what is taken over or acquired is the right of user to lay and maintain pipelines in the sub-soil of the land in question. Upon the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act the right of user in the land so specified vests absolutely in the Central Government or in the State Government or in the Corporation free from all encumbrances. Thus, what stands acquired is the right of user in the land in question for laying pipeline for the transport of petroleum or any mineral and not the land itself. The Statement of Objects and Reasons throws light on this facet of the matter and shows that although the land could be acquired outright for laying such pipelines under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, such procedure for acquisition would be costly. The Act is designed to achieve the purpose of laying of the pipelines for petroleum and minerals as “efficient and cheap means of transportation and distribution of petroleum and petroleum products.” At the same time Section 18 specifically lays down that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation to any other law for the time being in force relating to acquisition of land. Thus, in a given case where the circumstances and the occasions so demand, a resort could still be taken to acquire the lands by relying upon the general law of acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. For instance, for monitoring the pressure gauges or in cases where pipelines are branching in different directions, implementations to regulate the flow may require permanent establishments necessitating acquisition of the land itself rather than acquisition of a mere right of user. The Act is thus a special enactment designed to achieve the purpose of laying pipelines as efficient means of transportation and with this idea it is only the right of user in the land to lay such pipelines is acquired. 23. In Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya the Apex Court held further that, for the acquisition of right of user, the compensation is prescribed in terms of Section 10 of the Act. There are two elements of compensation under Section 10. The first part deals with any damage, loss or injury sustained by any owner or occupier as a result of exercise of powers conferred by Section 4, Section 7 or Section 8 of the Act that is to say the actual damage, loss or injury sustained because of entry upon and/or digging or marking levels and survey of land under Section 4 or while actual laying of the pipeline including digging of trenches and carrying of requisite material for such operations under Section 7 or at any stage of maintenance, examinations, repairing and altering or removing of pipeline in terms of Section 8 of the Act. The measure for determining such compensation is given with sufficient clarity in sub-section (3) of Section 10. The idea is to compensate the owner or occupier for actual damage, loss or injury sustained by him as a result of the operations carried out in terms of Section 4, Section 7 or Section 8 of the Act. One of the indicia under sub-section (3) could be “any injury to any other property whether movable or immovable, or the earnings of such persons in any other manner.” All possible acts as a result of which the damage, loss or injury could be so occasioned are taken care of and stipulated in said sub-section. One of the indicia under sub-section (3) could be “any injury to any other property whether movable or immovable, or the earnings of such persons in any other manner.” All possible acts as a result of which the damage, loss or injury could be so occasioned are taken care of and stipulated in said sub-section. Over and above such compensation for actual damage, loss or injury, additional compensation at the rate of 10% of the market value of the land is given to the owner or occupier under sub-section (4) of Section 10 for taking over the right of user to lay the pipelines. This element of additional compensation is independent of any actual loss or damage and is purely linked to the value of the land for the purposes of computation. This element of compensation is purely for acquisition of right of user simpliciter. The damage or loss or injury to the property is separately dealt with under first part of Section 10 and has to be compensated in toto. Theoretically, it is possible that in a barren piece of land as a result of exercise of powers under Section 4, Section 6 or Section 7 there may not be any damage or loss or injury. However, compensation under sub-section (4) of Section 10 for acquisition of right of user would still be independently payable. The expression “in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-section (1)” clearly shows the intent that the compensation for acquisition of right of user shall be in addition to the actual damage or loss or injury under first part of Section 10. 24. In the instant case, the property owned by the 1st respondent herein, having an extent of 21.25 cents, is comprised in Sy. No. 68 of Raroth Village in Thamarassery Taluk in Kozhikode District. The land in Sy. No. 68 of Raroth Village was included in the notification published in the Official Gazette, vide S.O. 1429(E) dated 21.06.2011, by the Central Government, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. No. 68 of Raroth Village in Thamarassery Taluk in Kozhikode District. The land in Sy. No. 68 of Raroth Village was included in the notification published in the Official Gazette, vide S.O. 1429(E) dated 21.06.2011, by the Central Government, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. After considering the objections filed by persons interested in the land, the Competent Authority forwarded reports to the Central Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings, and the Central Government, on being satisfied that such lands are required for laying of pipelines for the transport of natural gas, issued declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, vide S.O. 1390(E) dated 28.05.2014, that the right of user in such lands should be acquired for laying the pipelines. 25. The petitioner, who is the Competent Authority, by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, assessed compensation for the damage, loss or injury sustained to the 1st respondent, based on the parameters provided in sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, for the removal of trees and standing crops on the land, i.e. under clause (i) sub-section (3) of Section 10 and passed Ext.P3 award for Rs. 2,00,717/-. As per the statement of fixation of compensation, which forms part of Ext.P3, the assessment of compensation by the petitioner was one made under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. 26. The 1st respondent, after accepting the amount of compensation assessed in Ext.P3 award under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, based on the parameters provided in sub-section (3) of Section 10, under protest, filed O.P. No. 244 of 2019 before the District Judge, under Section 10 of the Act. In O.P. No. 244 of 2019, the 1st respondent has also sought for determination of compensation by the District Judge, towards market value of the land, under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act. 27. In O.P. No. 244 of 2019, the 1st respondent has also sought for determination of compensation by the District Judge, towards market value of the land, under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act. 27. In O.P. No. 244 of 2019, the petitioner has filed a counter statement (Ext.P2) contending, inter-alia, that the Competent Authority has not assessed the compensation payable to the 1st respondent under sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act, for the time being, which will be paid to him on completion of the project by the 2nd respondent GAIL (India) Ltd. The specific stand taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, the Competent Authority is yet to assess the compensation under sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act and as such, the claim made in O.P. No. 244 of 2019 for determination of compensation by the District Judge towards market value of the land, under sub-section (5) of Section 10, cannot be entertained. The petitioner would contend that the District Judge, even without ascertaining whether the claim for determination of compensation under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act is based on a cause of action, is proceeding with the matter, absolutely without any jurisdiction. 28. Since the assessment of compensation in Ext.P3 award is under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, if the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority is not acceptable to the 1st respondent, he is entitled to file application before the District Judge, invoking the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 10, for determination of compensation by the District Judge, in which event, the District Judge shall determine the compensation, based on the parameters provided in sub-section (3) of Section 10. However, in O.P. No. 244 of 2019 filed under Section 10 of the Act, the 1st respondent sought for determination of compensation by the District Judge, towards market value of the land, which can be sought for only in an application filed under sub-section (5) of Section 10, against an award of the Competent Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 10, determining compensation in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-section (1) of Section 10, 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, 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. Therefore, as rightly contended by the petitioner, the District Judge is proceeding with O.P. No. 244 of 2019, absolutely without any jurisdiction, in so far as the claim made by the 1st respondent for determination of compensation towards market value of the land; which can only be sought for in an application filed under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, against an award of the Competent Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 10. 29. In M/s. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, AIR 1962 SC 1893 , a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, a writ of prohibition is an order directed to an inferior Tribunal forbidding it from continuing with a proceedings on the ground that the proceedings is without or in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the laws of the land, statutory or otherwise. 30. In Thirumala Tirpuati Devasthanams vs. Thallappaka Ananthacharyulu, (2003) 8 SCC 134 , the Apex Court held that, a writ of prohibition is normally issued only when the inferior Court or Tribunal proceeds to act without or in excess of jurisdiction, proceeds to act in violation of rules of natural justice, proceeds to act under law which is itself ultra-vires or unconstitutional, or proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights. The principles, which govern exercise of such power, must be strictly observed. A writ of prohibition must be issued only in rarest of rare cases. Judicial disciplines of the highest order has to be exercised whilst issuing such writs. 31. The principles, which govern exercise of such power, must be strictly observed. A writ of prohibition must be issued only in rarest of rare cases. Judicial disciplines of the highest order has to be exercised whilst issuing such writs. 31. In Standard Chartered Bank vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2006) 4 SCC 278, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated that, a writ of prohibition will be issued to prevent a tribunal or authority from proceeding further when the authority proceeds to act without or in excess of jurisdiction; proceeds to act in violation of the rules of natural justice or proceeds to act under a law which is itself ultra-vires or unconstitutional. 32. In the instant case, as already held, the District Judge is proceeding with O.P. No. 244 of 2019, absolutely without any jurisdiction, in so far as the claim made by the 1st respondent for determination of compensation towards market value of the land, which can only be sought for in an application filed under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, against an award of the Competent Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 10. 33. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing a writ of prohibition, interdicting the II Addl. District Judge, Kozhikode from proceeding further with O.P. No. 244 of 2019 filed by the 1st respondent, for determination of compensation towards market value of the land, by treating that original petition as an application filed under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act. The District Judge shall proceed further with O.P. No. 244 of 2019, by treating that application as one filed invoking the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, against determination of compensation by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, for the removal of trees and standing crops on the land owned by the 1st respondent. 34. In the event of an award being passed by the Competent Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act, determining compensation towards market value of the land, it would be open to the 1st respondent to challenge that award by filing an application before the District Judge, under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act, in case he is dissatisfied with the compensation so determined. No order as to costs.