C.R. No. 2348 of 2004 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2348 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision : 4.8.2009 State of Haryana .......... Petitioner Versus Karam Bir Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana and Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner / State of Haryana. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 24798-CII of 2008 This application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved for disposing of C.R. No. 2349 of 2004 being covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2003 (SC) 620 and judgment of this Court in the case of Patiala Improvement Trust V. S. Amar Singh 2005(2) RCR 332. The notice of the application was issued. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State contends that the matter is not covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, as in the present case the petitioners C.R. No. 2348 of 2004 2 had in fact filed the regular first appeal against the award passed by the learned Reference Court. The judgment and decree passed by this Court in regular first appeal has been duly executed, therefore, the petitioners are bound by the decree passed by this Court. On consideration of the matter I find that the dispute raised between the parties is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Furkan Ali Vs. State of Haryana & ors. 2007(1) Latest Judicial Reports 243, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- “4. The learned executing (Court ) has dismissed the application by holding that the petitioners have filed objections against award No. 15-A which were dismissed. It was further held that the petitioners were not entitled to claim the benefit as they had failed to explain as to why they did not prefer the objections / reference under Section 18 of the Act against award No. 15. Accordingly, by holding that once the objections against award No. 15-A were dismissed and the petitioners have failed to avail the remedy under Section 28 of the Act, they were not entitled to maintain the present execution application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of this Court reported in Patiala Improvement Trust, Patiala Vs. Amar Singh and others, 2005 (Supp.) Latest Judicial Reports 310 : 2005(2) PLR 150, wherein C.R. No. 2348 of 2004 3 this Court was pleased to hold as under :- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that the reliance placed by the learned executing Court on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Vishwanatha Pilai (supra) is meritorious. A specific question posed in para 2 in the aforementioned case is whether the other co-owners who did not expressly seek reference are entitled to enhanced compensation pro rata as per their share on the basis of decision made in favour of another co-owner. The answer given to the aforementioned question is based on the principle that all the co-sharers are in possession and owner of every part of the land. The view of the Supreme Court becomes explicit from the last para of the judgment which reads 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 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 his other co-owners as well. What was acquired was their totality of right, title and interest in the acquired C.R. No. 2348 of 2004 4 property and when the reference was made in respect thereof under Section 18 they are equally entitled to receive compensation pro rata as per their share. The Courts below committed manifest error in refusing to pass an award and payment thereof to the appellants merely on the ground that there was no mention in this regard to the reference application or two of them sought reference in respect of two awards and the last one made no attempt in their behalf.” The aforementioned view of the Supreme Court squarely answers the controversy raised in this petition in favour of the claimant-respondent because it is admitted position that the claimant- respondent is the co-sharer / co-owner of the acquired land to the extent of 1/7th whereas his children were entitled to 6/7th share and have got the enhanced compensation in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal dated 22.9.1986.” Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court referred to above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is entitled to maintain the execution application on the basis of the award passed in favour of the other co-sharers.” Consequently, this C.M. is allowed. In view of the law laid down in the case of Furkan Ali Vs. State of Haryana & ors. ( supra) this application is allowed and the main C.R. No. 2348 of 2004 5 case is taken up for hearing. C. R. No. 2348 of 2004 In view of the law laid down by this Court in Furkan Ali Vs. State of Haryana & ors. ( supra), this revision petition is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. 4.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE