The Life Insurance Corporation of India vs The Assistant Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

The present petition is filed in the following background:

The petitioner is a Statutory Corporation, namely the Life Insurance Corporation of India. It is stated that the petitioner had approached the first respondent to acquire certain lands in Athani Taluk in Belgaum District to set up its office. Pursuant to the request, the first respondent is said to have acquired one acre of land in land bearing Sy. No. 984/2. The owner of the land was Balappa Siddappa Motagi who was duly notified for acquisition and the land owner had received a compensation of Rs. 10,650/- on 16.03.1992. Thereafter, the same was neither challenged nor was a reference sought to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation and it had attained finality. However, the petitioner was issued with a notice on an application said to have been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 who are said to be the widow and daughter of late Balappa seeking a reference under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the LA Act'', for brevity) before the first respondent to the Civil Court for determination of the enhanced compensation. It is the petitioner''s case that the petitioner was not made a party to the said proceedings, but however, they got themselves impleaded and contested the application, while pointing out that the Assistant Commissioner had acquired the land for the purpose of construction of the office of the petitioner and it was only after following the procedure in law.

However, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Athani, had proceeded to record evidence and allowed the application holding that since there was no service of notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act on the Respondents 2 and 3, the question of limitation in respect of the entitlement of the respondents to seek enhancement of compensation is not taken away and hence, had opined that the efflux of time did not preclude them from approaching the Court and has allowed the application. It is this which is under challenge in the present proceedings. It is to be noticed that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1992 and the land owner had also received the compensation in the year 1992.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that Respondents 2 and 3 were claiming under Balappa who had received the compensation and the proceedings had attained a finality. Balappa is said to have died in the year 1998. It is thereafter that Respondents 2 and 3 had sought to reopen the proceedings by recourse to the aforesaid application in the year 2000 and by virtue of the very fact that Balappa was alive in 1998, would indicate that Respondents 2 and 3 were precluded from seeking to reopen the proceedings on the footing that there was no service of notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act. What was relevant was a service of notice on Balappa and not Respondents 2 and 3 because, they were only claiming under Balappa. It is in this regard that the record was called for and has been examined.

The learned counsel appearing for Respondents 2 and 3 would however insist that it is the settled legal position that unless a notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act is served, the question of limitation running against a land owner seeking reference and enhancement of compensation is not taken away and would insist that the court below was justified in allowing the application.

However, the learned Government Advocate would verify from the records that Balappa was duly served with a notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act as early as on 3.3.1992.

Since Balappa had the knowledge of the award and received the compensation and did not choose to seek any further relief, Respondents 2 and 3 were precluded from doing so belatedly, and after the death of Balappa. The court below is therefore not justified in having allowed their application.

The petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.