The main legal principle established in the judgment is that under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, if a reference is made by one co-owner specifically mentioning that it is on behalf of all, then other co-owners are entitled to enhanced compensation. However, if the reference does not specifically mention the dissatisfaction of all co-owners, then other co-owners are not entitled to enhanced compensation.

Alok Singh, J.

1. Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the judgment dated 25.04.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby application moved by the petitioners seeking enhanced compensation as granted to other co-owners pursuant to order dated 28.01.2004 passed by this Court in an appeal arising out of the reference made by another co-owners, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that large area of the land of Village Hodal, was acquired by the State. Present petitioners were the co-owners in the land acquired. An award was passed on 31.03.1983; some of the co-owners preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in which compensation was enhanced; thereafter some of the co-owners preferred appeal before this Court, which was decided vide judgment dated 28.01.2004 and compensation of the land was enhanced to Rs.52/- per sq. yard.

3. Petitioners moved an application before the Court below stating that petitioners were also co-owners/co-sharers in joint possession of the coparcenary property as detailed in para no.1 of the execution which was acquired by the State. Two co-sharers/ co-owners, who were also members of the family of the petitioners, filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was allowed by the learned District Judge and the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.32.85 per sq. yard. In a further appeal before this Court, compensation was enhanced to Rs.52/- per sq. yard vide judgment dated 28.01.2004. It is contended by the petitioners that since on the reference and appeal filed by the other co-owners of the family members of the petitioners, ultimately compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.52/- per sq. yard, hence, petitioners being co-owners are also entitled for the same compensation. Learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment dated 25.04.2009 dismissed the application placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ambey Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar and another, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 84.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that reference was made by the other co-sharers and family members of the petitioners and appeal was also filed by other co-sharers and family members of the petitioners, hence whatever compensation is fixed ultimately by this Court in an appeal arising out of the reference filed by other co- owners, petitioners are entitled for the benefit thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of A. Viswanatha Pillai and others v. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1966(1), Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 620 and on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Housing Board Haryana v. Bhag Singh, (2008-1)149 P.L.R., 826.

6. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has argued that Court below while dismissing the application moved by the petitioners having placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ambey Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar and another, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 84, and Ajjam Linganna and others v. Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad and others, in Civil Appeal Nos. 7175-7179 of 2000, decided on 28.11.2000, has committed no illegality.The learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, further argued that since no reference was made by the petitioners, hence, petitioners have to blame themselves and petitioners are not entitled for any enhanced compensation, which was granted to the persons who had made reference and thereafter appeal. The learned Deputy Advocate General, "further argued that Land Acquisi