JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of 115 civil revision petitions and a Civil Writ Petition (details whereof are at the foot of the judgment) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC').

2. After having heard the learned counsels representing the respective parties, the following questions arise for adjudication:-

(1) Whether on the basis of a judgment of the Court enhancing the compensation of acquired land passed in the case(s) filed by a co-sharer with respect to his own share in undivided/joint land, the other co-sharer(s), who did not file any petition, can file an execution petition to claim the enhanced compensation without any enforceable award/judgment in his/their favour when the petition had been filed by the other co-sharers on their on behalf and not on the behalf of all co-sharers?

(2) Whether the orders passed by the Lok Adalats, on the basis of concession granted by the officials under the misconception of law, are binding, particularly in the absence of a conscious decision of the concerned Organization /Institution/ Corporate entity/ State Government/juristic person?

3. DISUCSSION

ISSUE NO.1

3.1 On the one hand, the learned counsels representing the landowners while relying upon the following judgments A. Viswanatha Pillai vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition, (1991) 4 SCC17, Surjit Singh and othes vs. State of Haryana and another, 2007 (1) R.C.R.(Civil) 352, Ram Chander and others vs. The State of Haryana and another, 2016 (4) Law Herald 3533, Smt. Parwati and another vs. The State of Haryana and another, 2009(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 572, Sombir and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-35666 of 2019, decided on 09.12.2019), Patiala Improvement Trust through its C hairman vs. S. Amar Singh and others, 2005(2) RC.Rfcivil) 332, Ramesh Singh (died) by LRs vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 469, and Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation vs. Randhir Singh and others, 2022 (2) R.C.R.(Civil) 520, contend that once the market value of the acquired land of the co-sharers has been enhanced by the Court, the remaining co-sharers can file an execution petition without any judgment or decree in their favour. In substance, their main argument is that the State cannot discriminate with its subjects, particularly when they are identically situated in a case. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') are required to be interpreted in a manner which ensure that all the land-losers get adequate, fair and reasonable compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their land.

3.2 . Per contra, the learned Advocate General, Haryana, while referring to the provisions of Section 18 of the 1894 Act and Section 64 of the 2013 Act contends that the concept of the co-owners representing the other co-owners while filing a petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act or Section 64 of the 2013 Act, as the case may be, is not envisaged in any of the Acts. While elaborating, he submits that any person interested in the compensation and who has not accepted the award of the Collector, is required to file a written application to the Collector in this regard. In the absence of a written application, such interested person shall not be entitled to object the correctness of the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC') except under Section 28A of the 1894 Act i.e only when there is an enhancement in the amount of market value of the acquired land by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the RC'). For filing an application under Section 28A of the 1894 Act, the interested person shall apply within a period of 3 months from the date of judgment of the R