Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 1470
2009 (5) RCR(Civ) 572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Smt. Parwati & Anr. -Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Haryana & Anr. -Respondents
CR No.2084 of 2006
Decided on: 27.8.2008
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. R.A. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. R.D. Sharam, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents.
A reference made by one co-owner for enhancement of compensation enures to the benefit of other co-owners in cases of joint property where co-owners have no distinct and specified shares. Additionally, a co-owner has interest in the whole property and every parcel of it, and possession of joint property by one co-owner is considered as possession of all co-owners.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 18 - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [Section 4, Section 18] - The court discussed the interpretation and application of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with the reference for enhancement of compensation. The court considered the legal principle that a reference made by one co-owner for enhancement of compensation enures to the benefit of other co-owners in cases of joint property where co-owners have no distinct and specified shares. The court also highlighted the principle that a co-owner has interest in the whole property and every parcel of it, and possession of joint property by one co-owner is considered as possession of all co-owners. These legal provisions influenced the court's decision in allowing the revision petition and remanding the case back to the executing court for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Haryana acquired agricultural land for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners, co-owners of the acquired land, did not file a reference under section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. Subsequently, they sought enhanced compensation through an execution application, contending that they were entitled to the same rate as other co-sharers who had obtained enhanced compensation through a reference.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, as co-owners, were entitled to the benefit of the enhanced compensation obtained by other co-sharers through a reference under section 18 of the Act. The court emphasized that in cases of joint property where co-owners have no distinct and specified shares, a reference made by one co-owner for enhancement of compensation enures to the benefit of other co-owners. The court also held that a co-owner has interest in the whole property and every parcel of it, and possession of joint property by one co-owner is considered as possession of all co-owners.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the entitlement of the petitioners, as co-owners, to enhanced compensation despite not filing a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the application of legal principles regarding joint property and co-ownership in determining the entitlement to enhanced compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal principle that a reference made by one co-owner for enhancement of compensation enures to the benefit of other co-owners in cases of joint property where co-owners have no distinct and specified shares. The court also emphasized the principle that a co-owner has interest in the whole property and every parcel of it, and possession of joint property by one co-owner is considered as possession of all co-owners.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The case was remanded back to the executing court to proceed with the execution application filed by the petitioners.
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.9.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide which execution petition filed by the petitioners for getting enhanced compensation was ordered to be dismissed.
2. The State of Haryana vide notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) acquired agricultural land measuring 1068.64 acres in villages Jharsa, Kanhai, Bindapur and Samaspur for public purpose. Land measuring 28 kanal 15 marlas falling in the revenue estate of village Kanhai was acquired in which the petitioners were having specific share to the extent of 1/18th share. The Land Acquisition Collector passed award No.8 dated 23.3.1993 vide which compensation was awarded for 948.95 acres of land including land measuring 28 kanals 15 marlas out of which the share of the petitioners was 1/18th.
3. The said award of the Land Acquisition Collector was challenged by the other co-owners namely Maru Ram, Prem Raj, through their LRs and Ami Lal, Chhote Lal, Khubi, Shera sons of Baldev by filing a reference under section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation so assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
4. The petitioners, however, did not file any reference under section 18 of the Act.
5. Reference filed by other co-owners of the land was partly accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon in LA Case No.139 of 28.7.2000 titled Maru Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and another. Maru Ram and others were entitled to receive enhanced compensation in respect of their acquired land mentioned in Statement No.19 at the rate of Rs.202/-per square yard irrespective of the nature of the land. Rates so affixed has attained finality as it has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The petitioners moved an application for execution of the decree on the plea that they were also entitled to the compensation at the same rate as was given to the other co-sharers even in absence of a reference under section 18 of the Act.
7. The State contested the Application moved by the petitioners on the plea that once the petitioners had accepted the compensation by not seeking reference they were not entitled to enhanced compensation before the Executing Court.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bishan Singh and others 1981 P.L.J. 40, wherein this court was pleased to lay down as under:-
“4. The only contention raised before us by Mr.Bhoop Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, is that the respondents could not take the benefit of the award given by the learned Additional District Judge as they did not ask for reference and that the reference was made by the Collector only in respect of the claim of Kissi under section 18 of the Act.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for he parties, in the circumstances of the case, we are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. Admittedly, Kissi and the respondents are co-sharers. The application for reference bore the name of all the co-sharers. It is correct that it had been signed only by one co-sharer but that application would be taken to have been filed on behalf of all the co-sharers.
Moreover, in the instant case, the appeal was filed against the award by all the co-sharers and that appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court. The view we are taking finds full support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ch.Kehar Singh etc. Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1963 Punjab 490, wherein it has been observed thus:-
“As I look at the matter if the property acquired is joint and the co-owners have no distinct and specified shares therein, then a reference under Section 18 of the Act by one of the co-owners, for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector will enure for
