The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the E.S.I. Corporation to notice as provided in S.20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the quashing of impugned judgments passed without such notice.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The E.S.I. Corporation established in the terms of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 has come up with these two Original Petitions challenging Ext. P1 judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara in L.A.R. Nos. 408/96,13/1989 and 14/1989. Those judgments were passed in the reference made by the second respondent at the instance of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that those judgments were passed without notice to it and that being party interested as defined in S.3(b) of the said Act, it was entitled to notice as provided in S.20 of the Act. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings which led to the impugned judgments enhancing compensation payable to the respondents 3 and 4 in this case. It is their contention that the compensation payable to respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of enhancement ordered in the impugned judgment has to be met from the funds of the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced compensation as decreed in terms of the impugned judgments without notice to them, the petitioner submits, inspite of the statutory provision under S.20 of the Act that they are entitled to such notice. In support of their contention, the decision of the Supreme Court reported in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Paarishad v. Cyan Devi (dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. etc. etc. Respondents (AIR 1995 SC 724) and a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 683) are pointed out.

3. Countering these contentions, counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the impugned judgments are now appealed against by them before this Court. It is also submitted that these Writ Petitions will not lie challenging the impugned judgments as the petitioner, if found aggrieved should have filed an appeal in terms of S.54 of the Act. It is also contended that the petitioner has been made party in the appeals filed by them and it is only after getting notice in such appeals that the petitioner has preferred this appeal. It is also contended that the petitioner has executed a bond in terms of R.9(3) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules agreeing to pay the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court without any dispute. They have to honour the bond and deposit the amount as awarded in the impugned judgment. Without that, the petitioner cannot be heard, to contend against that judgment, respondents 3 and 4 submit.

4. The answer to these contentions raised by respondents 3 and 4 are contained in the two decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner. It is now settled law in the light of the decision reported in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Appellant v. Gyan Devi (dead by LRs. and Anr., respondents, (AIR 1995 SC 724) that "even when notice has been served on the local authority, the remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution would be available to the local authority on ground on which judicial review is permissible under Art.226". This is a case where notices were not given at all to the petitioners. Therefore, certainly, they are entitled to challenge the impugned judgments under Art.226. It had also been held by the Supreme Court that "the proviso to S.5(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference court to invoke the remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution as well as the remethes available under the L.A. Act".

5. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 683) that "with the pronouncement of the decision of the Constitution Bench in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (AIR 1995 SC 724) the matter is no longer res Integra and it is open to the aggrieved persons to invoke the extra ordinary