Co-owner of acquired land entitled to pro-rata enhanced compensation from other co-owners' Section 18 reference award, even without own reference, enforceable via execution proceedings.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P., in terms whereof, the execution petition filed by the respondents herein qua the payment of enhanced compensation in terms of the award passed by the learned Reference Court in a Reference raised by the co-owners was allowed by directing the present petitioner to pay enhanced compensation to the respondents herein as was awarded in favour of the co-owners by the learned Reference Court.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that post acquisition of land of the petitioner, though, the petitioner did not prefer any Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but the other co-owners did. In the Reference filed by them the award amount was enhanced. On the basis of the award passed by the learned Reference Court, an Execution Petition was filed by the present respondents, which was allowed by the learned Executing Court by returning the following findings:-

“From the perusal of the record it is transpires that Award in Land Acquisition petition titled as "Pyare Lal & other vs. LAC & another was passed on 13.05.2015 awarding enhancement in compensation by this court. The petitioners are also co-owner of the land under reference. From the perusal of the award it is transpires that the land acquired in the above noted case bears Khasra No. 2405/1075, 1078, 1096 comprised in Khatauni No. 204 min and Khewat No. 111 min as entered in Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011 situate in Village Mubarikpur, Tehsil Amb, District Una (HP), which was jointly owned by the applicants alongwith the petitioners in the above noted case of Pyare Lal & other vs. LAC. The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. AIR 2012 Himachal Pradesh 68 the Hon'ble High Court has held that it is manifest that the claim for enhanced compensation by a co- owner at par with other co-owners in whose favour an award has been passed is based on his own right as a co-owner irrespective of any claim for re- determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of award of the court under Section 28-A of the Act. Therefore in view of the law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners the present objection of the respondent No.2 is not maintainable. Hence, dismissed. Let the matter be listed for making payment for 22.01.2020.”

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in light of the fact that no Reference was filed by the present respondents against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, they were not entitled for any enhancement and that too in the Execution Petition and the learned Executing Court has erred in not appreciating this fact. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1984 (4) SCC 90, titled J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. versus State of U.P. and others , 1996(9) SCC 84, titled Ambey Devi v. State of Bihar and another , 1997(7) SCC 88, titled as Irshad Ali and others versus Hazi Abdul Sukhur Mozumdar and others and 1996(4) SC 469 titled Ramesh Singh (died) through LRs versus State of Haryana in support of his contention.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1991, SC 1966, titled