IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 28, 2010 Shyam Bihari and others. …Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondent-State. Alok Singh, J. Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the judgment 25.04.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby application C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 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. 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. 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 2 C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 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.) vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 84. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and others reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1966(1), Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 620 and on 3 C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 the judgment of this Court in the matter of Housing Board Haryana vs. Bhag Singh reported in 2008(1) P.L.R., 826. 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.) vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 84, and Ajjam Linganna and others vs. 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 Acquisition Act is complete code in itself, hence, petitioners cannot be permitted, without filing any reference, to claim enhanced compensation simply because it was granted to other who have made reference. In the matter of Ambey Devi (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph no.4 has observed as under:- 4 C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 “4…….. It is an admitted position that the co-owner filed an application and had sought reference under Section 18 in respect of his share only. So, it is, as a fact, claims for compensation in specie and was paid towards 1/4th share to the claimant. By no stretch of imagination, the application under Section 18(1) by one of the co-sharers would be treated as one made on behalf of all the co-sharers. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is not entitled to lay any higher compensation pursuant to an award made by the Reference Court under Section 26 at the instance of one of the co-owners.” However, in the matter of A. Viswanatha Pillai (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:- “……When one of the co-owners or coparceners made a statement in his reference application that himself and his brothers are dissatisfied with the award made by the Collector and that they are entitled to higher compensation, 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 behalf of other co-owners as well. What was acquired was their totality of right, title and interest in the acquired property and when the reference was made in 5 C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 respect thereof under section 18 they are equally entitled to receive compensation pro rata as per their shares…..” In the matter of Jalandhar Improvement Trust (supra), the Apex Court placing reliance earlier judgment of A. Vishwanath Pillai, in paragraph no.5 has held as under:- “5. Having regard to the view we propose to take and the manner of disposal intended to be given, it is unnecessary for us to even advert to the relevance or applicability of Section 28-A of the Act to the case of the nature before us. The 4th respondent indisputably is a co-owner along with her children who were added as petitioners 2 to 5 to the award dated 5.2.1986, in which case, even on the first principles of law one co-owner is entitled to have the benefit of the enhanced compensation given in respect of the other co-owners in a reference made at his instance in respect of the land acquired, which belonged to all of them, jointly. So far as the fact that in this case the 4th respondent’s application for reference under Section 18 was rejected by the Tribunal ultimately on the ground that the reference was made on a belated application, does not make any difference and, is no reason, in our view, to differentiate the claims of such co-owners whose claims came to be really sustained 6 C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 and that of the 4th respondent, for differential treatment. We are fortified to some extent in the view expressed above, by the principles laid down by this Court in the decision reported in (AIR 1991 Supreme Court P, 1966), A. Vishwanath Pillai and Ors. V. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition.” In the matter of Ambey Devi (supra), reference was made by one of the co-owners on his own behalf without mentioning therein that reference is being made on behalf of all the co-owners being members of the same family, hence, Apex Court has held that if reference is made by one of the co- owners, then enhanced compensation granted on his reference cannot be claimed by another co-owners without making any reference as provided under the Act. While in the matter of A. Viswanatha Pillai (supra), the Apex Court has specifically mentioned that award was made by one of the co- owners in the coparcenary property by making statement in his application that he himself and his brothers are dis- satisfied with the award made by the Collector and they are entitled to higher compensation in view of this, Apex Court has observed that reference was made by one co-owner on behalf of all the co-owners members of the same family. The Apex Court in the case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust has placed reliance on the judgment passed in A. Viswanatha Pillai in view of the peculiar facts 7 C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 that on the reference made by respondent no.4 therein, his children were also added as petitioner nos. 2 to 5 in the land reference which was originally referred at the instance of 4th respondent only, hence, benefit granted to his children should also be granted to him and he should not be deprived of the enhanced compensation merely because his reference was held to be time barred. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Housing Board Haryana (supra), while placing reliance on the other judgments of this Court, has held that a co-owner is entitled for the enhanced compensation as granted to one of the co-owners on the reference of that co-owner. Another Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Tejpal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, in R.F.A. No. 3887 of 2007, decided on 09.12.2009, while placing reliance of A. Viswanatha Pillai (supra), has held that if a co-owner claimed enhanced compensation, the other can also claim the same amount of compensation even in execution proceedings. I am of the view that in the present case, it has not been alleged and proved, as in the case of A. Viswanatha Pillai (supra), that while making reference, a mention was made therein by the co-sharer that he and his other co-owners are feeling dis-satisfied and he and his other co-sharers are entitled for enhanced compensation, hence, in my view, they are not entitled for enhanced compensation in view of the 8 C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ambey Devi (supra). Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Housing Board Haryana (supra), without observing specifically as to whether in a reference any mention was made that applicant and his co-sharers are feeling dis-satisfied with the award has held that even if reference is made by one of the co- owners, other co-owners are entitled the same enhanced compensation which was granted on the reference to other co- owners. In the same fashion, another Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Tejpal Singh (supra) without observing therein as to whether any mention was made in the reference as observed in the case of A. Viswanatha Pillai (supra), allowed the enhanced compensation to the another co-owner simply because they were impleaded as proforma respondents in the appeal against the award passed by the Reference Court. In my humble opinion in the matter of Ambey Devi (supra), the Apex Court has specifically held that Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. cannot be pressed in service impleading the other co-owner in the reference and appeal and if other co-owners have not made any reference, they will not be entitled for any enhanced compensation merely because compensation was enhanced on the reference of one co-owner. 9 C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 Having perused judgments passed by the Apex Court as referred herein above, I am of the view that i) if a reference is made by one of the co-owners specifically mentioning therein that reference is being made on behalf of all, then other co-owners are also entitled for enhanced compensation. ii) Even if reference is not made specifically on behalf of all the co-owners, however, if reference contained such material like in the case of A. Viswanatha Pillai (supra) that applicant and his co-owners brothers are feeling dis-satisfied from the award then Court can infer that reference was made on behalf of all the co-owners and other co-owners shall also be entitled for the enhanced compensation. iii) However, if one of the co-owner has made reference on his own behalf without taking any pleading therein that he and other co-owners are feeling dis-satisfied from the award and there is no material before the Court to find out that reference was made on behalf of other co-owners also then other co-owners who had not made reference are not entitled for the enhanced compensation in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ambey Devi (supra). iv) This Court is also of the view that if reference is made solely on behalf of one co-owner, other co-owners 10 C.R. No. 6019 of 2009 cannot seek impleadment in his reference or in an appeal arising out of the reference, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ambey Devi (supra), as well as, in the matter of Ajjam Linganna (supra). v) However, if co-owner wants to seek enhanced compensation can take recourse of Section 28-A of the Act in accordance with law, if other ingredient of Section 28-A are available. In view of the above, I find that judgment of this Court in the matter of Housing Board Haryana (supra) and Tejpal Singh (supra) distinguishable in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Ambey Devi (supra), as well as, Ajjam Linganna (supra) and particularly in view of the fact in the present case. Petitioners could not prove that reference was made on behalf of all the co-owners as other co-owners were feeling dis-satisfied with the award, hence in my view, no interference is called for. Dismissed. September 28, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 11