The land is acquired and the person recorded as the tenure holder may be entitled to get the compensation. The money in lieu of the value of the land is deposited in the name of the person in whose favour the land was directed to be recorded in the mutation proceedings. The only recourse open to innocent owner for realization of the money of compensation is by filling a suit of declaration for entitlement of such amount of compensation from the person in whose favour the land acquisition authority have handed over the money. This is very strange situation to an individual having the actual ownership and the title in the said property. The law of adverse possession is further having a disastrous implication to the rights of the actual owner who is occupied in respect of his job or limitation dealing with the responsibility of a professional and the service class by deprivation and rather the surrender of their property rights. This is again leading to the unwanted litigation to the innocent citizens. However the law of adverse possession is still being respected by the protector of the law enforcement agencies meant with the power of maintaining the tranquillity in the public administration. This is unnecessary a dragging of the actual owner to the unwanted litigation. It is further a conflict by the cantina of judgement on the point of realisation of the insurance coverage to the dependent of the person after the death of the assured individual under a Life Insurance Policy. According to the section 39 of Life Insurance Act, the nominee may withdraw the amount of compensation but the same is attributed to legal heir and representative of the diseased. Thus after the death of the husband, if the sister remain the nominee even after the marriage of the assured person having the insurance coverage, the compensation may be awarded by L.I.C to nominee sister and in case of strange relationship between the sister of the diseased husband and the wife of the diseased than the wife has to file to civil suit for realization of the amount of compensation. This is wholly impractical approach as the person in need of assured amount may wait for an indefinite period to taste the fruit of the assured amount for bringing up the dependent children by the wife after the death of her husband. A person walking on foot as pedestrian or riding through the cycle is hit by a vehicle driven rashly and negligently, then the compensation may be given to the dependent of the diseased. However, somebody intentionally commit the murder of such person by the hit of the same vehicle intentionally to kill him, then no compensation is awardable under motor-vehicle Act. There are the cases of custodian death and the pre-planned murder but no compensation is awarded by the State Government to the dependent of the diseased. On the other hand the criminal case triable by the court of session or even before the Magistrate may be withdrawn unilaterally under the provision of section 321 Cr.P.C. This is very strange that in case of intentional killing there is no responsibility upon the invader of the law by a criminal but in case of accident the liability for payment of compensation is attributed upon the owner of the vehicle. The insurance company may be assigned with vicarious liability but there is no safeguard provided to a citizen from murder. Thus the concept of sovereignty as dependent upon the maxim of saying that the interest of the society is a paramount consideration of the law is completely absent in the present atmosphere of our country.
Posted on: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 04:13:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015