Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of the deceased claimant Smt. Parvathamma, filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi (Reference Court) in L.A.C.No.255/2006. The Reference Court had dismissed three I.As filed by the petitioners: one under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing legal representatives on record, another under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside abatement, and a third under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement. The background facts are that the claimant's lands measuring 3 acres and 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.Nos. 19 and 20 of Boodathimmanahalli, Gubbi Taluk were acquired for constructing a tank. Dissatisfied with the compensation award, the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was registered as L.A.C.No.255/2006. During the pendency of the reference, the claimant died, and her legal representatives sought to come on record. The Reference Court dismissed the applications, observing that the delay was not properly explained. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the delay was not intentional and that a liberal approach is required in land acquisition matters. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the I.As, thereby permitting the legal representatives to be brought on record, setting aside the abatement, and condoning the delay. The writ petitions were allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Substitution of Legal Representatives - Order 22 Rule 3 CPC - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 Limitation Act - The petitioners sought to bring legal representatives of the deceased claimant on record, set aside abatement, and condone delay in filing the application. The Reference Court dismissed the applications on the ground of delay and lack of sufficient cause. The High Court held that a liberal approach is required in land acquisition matters and that the delay was not intentional. The impugned order was set aside and the applications were allowed. (Paras 2-6)
B) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Liberal Approach - The claimant's lands were acquired for constructing a tank. She sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After her death, her legal representatives filed applications for substitution. The High Court emphasized that in land acquisition matters, a liberal approach should be adopted to ensure that the claimants are not deprived of compensation due to technicalities. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court erred in dismissing the applications for bringing legal representatives on record, setting aside abatement, and condonation of delay, and whether a liberal approach should be adopted in such matters.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 20.2.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi in L.A.C.No.255/2006 is set aside. The I.As filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, Order 22 Rule 9 CPC, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed. The legal representatives of the deceased claimant are permitted to be brought on record, the abatement is set aside, and the delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement is condoned.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Setting aside abatement
- Substitution of legal representatives
- Liberal approach in land acquisition matters
- Order 22 Rule 3 CPC
- Order 22 Rule 9 CPC
- Section 5 Limitation Act
- Section 18 Land Acquisition Act
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (05) 2
Writ Petition Nos.21814-21816 of 2013 (LA-RES)
Sri Chandrachooda.M.B. (for petitioners), Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP (for respondent)
Smt. Parvathamma (since dead by LRs) - Ramakrishnaiah, Siddamma, Chidananda, Karappa, Chadramma
The Asst. Commissioner-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Tumkur Sub Division, Tumkur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Reference Court dismissing applications for substitution, setting aside abatement, and condonation of delay.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (legal representatives of deceased claimant) sought to quash the order dated 20.2.2013 and allow their I.As for bringing legal representatives on record, setting aside abatement, and condoning delay.
Filing Reason
The Reference Court dismissed the applications for substitution, setting aside abatement, and condonation of delay, which the petitioners challenged as erroneous.
Previous Decisions
The Reference Court in L.A.C.No.255/2006 dismissed the I.As filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, Order 22 Rule 9 CPC, and Section 5 of Limitation Act on 20.2.2013.
Issues
Whether the Reference Court erred in dismissing the applications for bringing legal representatives on record, setting aside abatement, and condonation of delay.
Whether a liberal approach should be adopted in land acquisition matters for substitution applications.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the substitution application was not intentional and that a liberal approach should be adopted in land acquisition matters.
The respondent (State) opposed the applications, but the High Court did not detail their arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
In land acquisition matters, a liberal approach should be adopted in considering applications for substitution of legal representatives, setting aside abatement, and condonation of delay, as the delay is often not intentional and the claimants should not be deprived of compensation due to technicalities.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners have called into question, the order, dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure-F) passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi (Reference Court) in L.A.C.No.255/2006, dismissing the petitioners’ three I.As. – for bringing the legal representatives of the claimant on record, for setting aside the abatement and for the condonation of delay in making the application for setting aside the abatement.
The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant’s lands measuring 3 acres and 1 acre 10 guntas standing at Sy.Nos. 19 and 20 respectively of Boodathimmanahalli, Gubbi Taluk were acquired for the purpose of constructing a tank.
As she was not satisfied with the award passed by the respondent, she sought the reference invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘L.A. Act’ for short).
Procedural History
The claimant's lands were acquired; she sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was registered as L.A.C.No.255/2006. During pendency, the claimant died. Her legal representatives filed I.As under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, Order 22 Rule 9 CPC, and Section 5 of Limitation Act. The Reference Court dismissed these I.As on 20.2.2013. The legal representatives then filed the present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 22 Rule 3, Order 22 Rule 9
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 18
