ivil Appeal Nos
1694 1709 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order  dated 2311990 of the AP Administrative Tribunal Andhra Pradesh in RP Nos
1398689 24045 5089 2509189 1027  211189 28925 2689 28929 to 3189 and OA No 1918 of 1990
K Madhava Reddy and G Prabhakar for the Appellants
MK Ramamurthi section Markandeya and Ms C Markandeya for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered This is an appeal by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh by special leave Challenge is to the order of the State Administrative Tribunal directing the benefit of the Government Order of 18111981 to be extended to selection of the Sub Inspectors of Police which is done through the State level Recruitment Board
The Government Order which has been extracted in the Order of the Tribunal reads thus Notwithstanding anything in the Andhra Pra desh State and Subordinate Service Rules or the Special Rules candidates seeking appoint ment of all the non gazetted posts of all services and seeking eligibility in general educational test who have obtained the basic educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment eligibility for promotion in the special rules governing such posts through Telugu medium shall be given weight age in the matter of selection to such posts by awarding them 5 of the total aggregate maximum marks of the relevant competitive examination held by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for recruitment acquiring eligibility to such posts
566 Having regard to the avowed policy of the Government to introduce Telugu progressively in the State in the coming years and as Telugu has been introduced as official language at Directorage level and also in the lower courts in certain Districts of the State and so as to give preference to candidates who have ob tained the basic educational qualification through the medium of Telugu Government have after careful examination decided in consulta tion with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission that such candidates to give weightage of 5 of the total aggregate maximum marks of all the competitive examinations of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for recruitment to all the non gazetted poStS of all services
There is no dispute that the Order in its own terms applies to selection carried on through the State Public Service Commission nor is there any dispute that the selection of Sub Inspectors for the relevant period was being carried on by a body other than the State Public Service Commission
The Tribunal observed as follows We cannot the rule too literally and defeat the object and purpose with which it has been made
If the object and purpose are kept in view then  we have no hesitation m holding that it applies to all selections irrespective of the body that makes selections in the State
We see no merit in the literal con struction suggested by Sri Sagar
 We are told that the validity of the Government Notifi cation under challenge on the ground that the Government have no authority to make such a direction and that chal lenge is in an independent petition pending disposal before this Court
Since this petition is not one challenging the Notification but seeking its extension to areas not covered by the Notification in terms disposal of this petition has no bearing on the petition which challenges the Notifica tion
The State Government is the authority to take a policy decision
Whether the decision is tenable or not in law as we have just pointed out is not to be decided here
But since Government in their wisdom have specifically confined the application of the Notification to recruitment through the State Public Service Commission we have not been 567 able to appreciate the decision of the Tribunal that it was also available to be extended to selection through bodies other than the State Public Service Commission
Mr Ramamurti appearing in
support of the respondents  cause has pointed out that if the Government Notification is confined to selection through the State Public Service CommissiOn the Government Notification would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution
Therefore according to Mr Ramamurti it was open to the Tribunal to read down the requirement by saying that the benefit of the Notification would be applicable to all categories of selection
We have not been able to agree with Mr Ramamurti that when the Notification is specific and is intended to apply to a specified group of cases for selection it would be open to the Tribunal to extend its application beyond what has been clearly
Specified
It is one matter to say that the Notification applied in a limited way may be hit by law it is another to say that contrary to the restriction im posed the Tribunal would allow the Notification to have general application
We are inclined to agree with Mr Madhava Reddy for the State that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in lifting the restriction imposed
by the Government in the matter of benefit of 5 of total aggregate marks to those candidates who wrote their papers in Telugu language
The appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribu nal stands vacated
No costs  TNA Appeal al lowed


Summary:
The three appellants and their eldest brother under a family partition which took place in 1954 kept in common certain ancestral properties under the management of the latter
These properties were acquired in pursuance of a notification dated 1511967 under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
The eldest brother filed objections referring to the partition deed of 1954 and stated that each of the four brothers had 14 share in the properties in question
Ultimately the compensation was made to all the brothers at 14th share each
The eldest brother sought six references under section 18 being dissatisfied with the awards
The Civil Court enhanced the compensation and granted an award of 14th share thereof to the eldest brother with solatium and interest but did not award the balance amount to the appellants in their respective shares on the ground that they did not jointly ask for the reference
Out of the remaining three brothers two asked for reference for two awards only and the last one did not ask for reference of any award
On appeal the High Court confirmed the award and decrees of the civil court
Aggrieved the appellants preferred appeals by special leave to this Court
On the question whether in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act sought for by one of the co owners the other co owners who did not expressly seek reference are entitled to enhanced compensation pro rata as per their shares Allowing the appeals this Court 466 HELD 11 The Courts below committed a manifest error in refusing to pass an award and payment thereof to the appel lants
The coparceners claimants appellants in the instant case were entitled to payment of the enhanced award by the Civil Court pro rate of their 14th share each with 15 per cent solatium and 4 per cent interest as awarded by the Civil Court
471C D 12 It was not in dispute that under the partition deed the four brothers as coparceners kept in common the acquired property under the management of the eldest brother
The income derived therein was being shared in proportion to their shares by all the brothers
Therefore it remained as joint property
As co owners everyone was entitled to 14th share therein
468E 470F 13 When one of the co owners or coparceners made a statement in the reference application that the acquired property belonged to him and his brothers that he himself and his brothers were dissatisfied with the award made by the Collector and that they were entitled to higher compen sation it would be clear that he was making a request though not expressly stated so but by necessary implication that he was acting on his behalf and on behalf of his other co owners or coparceners and was seeking a reference on their behalf as well
What was acquired was their totality of right title and interest in the acquired property and when the reference was made in respect thereof under section 18 they were equally entitled to receive compensation pro rata as per their shares
468F 471A B 21 One of the co owners can file a suit and recover the property against strangers and the decree would ensure to all the co owners
A co owner is an owner of the property acquired but entitled to receive compensation pro rata
470A  E 22 A co owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a sole owner
It is not correct to say that a co owner s property was not his own
He owns several parts of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner in the property
470C D 23 No co owner has a definite right title and inter est in any particular item or a portion thereof
On the other hand he has right title and interest in every part and parcel of the joint property or coparcenary under Hindu Law by all the coparceners
470A B Kanta Goel vs
BP Pathak  Ors   Sri Ram 467 Pasricha vs Jagannath  Ors and Pal Singh vs SunderSingh dead by Lrs
 Ors 1989 1 SCR 67 relied on
It is surprising that the State having acquired the property of a citizen would take technical objections re garding the entitlement of the claim
The State certainly is right and is entitled to resist claim for enhancement and lead evidence in rebuttal to prove the prevailing price as on the date of notification and ask the court to determine the correct market value of the lands acquired compulsorily under the Act
But so far as the persons entitled to receive compensation are concerned it has no role to play
It is for the claimants inter se to lay the claim for compensation and the Court would examine and award the compensation to the rightful person
469E F