{"id":261336,"date":"2008-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-21T13:57:18","modified_gmt":"2018-01-21T08:27:18","slug":"smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008<\/div>\n
CR No.2084     of 2006                                           1\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n\n                                     CR No.2084        of 2006\n\n                                     Date of Decision: 27.8.2008\n\n\n\nSmt.Parwati & Anr.                                       ..Petitioners\n\n                         Vs.\n\nThe State of Haryana & Anr.                               ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\nCoram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma\n\n\n\n\nPresent:   Mr.R.A.Yadav, Advocate,\n           for the petitioners.\n\n           Mr.R.D.Sharam, DAG, Haryana,\n           for the respondents.\n                   ---\n\n      1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may\n           be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n      2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n\n      3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in\n             Digest?\n                             ---\n\nVinod K.Sharma,J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Present revision petition is directed against the order dated<\/p>\n
22.9.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide which<\/p>\n
execution petition filed by the petitioners for getting enhanced
\n CR No.2084     of 2006                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
compensation was ordered to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
            The State of Haryana vide notification under section 4<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) acquired agricultural land<\/p>\n
measuring 1068.64 acres in villages Jharsa, Kanhai, Bindapur and Samaspur<\/p>\n
for public purpose. Land measuring 28 kanal 15 marlas falling in the<\/p>\n
revenue estate of village Kanhai was acquired in which the petitioners were<\/p>\n
having specific share to the extent of 1\/18th share. The Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
Collector passed award No.8 dated 23.3.1993 vide which compensation<\/p>\n
was awarded for 948.95 acres of land including land measuring 28 kanals<\/p>\n
15 marlas out of which the share of the petitioners was 1\/18th.<\/p>\n
            The said award of the Land Acquisition Collector was<\/p>\n
challenged by the other co-owners namely Maru Ram, Prem Raj, through<\/p>\n
their LRs and Ami Lal, Chhote Lal, Khubi, Shera sons of Baldev by filing a<\/p>\n
reference under section 18<\/a> of the Act seeking enhancement of the<\/p>\n
compensation so assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.<\/p>\n
            The petitioners, however, did not file any reference under<\/p>\n
section 18<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
            Reference filed by other co-owners of the land was partly<\/p>\n
accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon in LA Case No.139<\/p>\n
of 28.7.2000 titled Maru Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and another.<\/p>\n
Maru Ram and others were entitled to receive enhanced compensation in<\/p>\n
respect of their acquired land mentioned in Statement No.19 at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.202\/- per square yard irrespective of the nature of the land. Rates so<\/p>\n
affixed has attained finality as it has been upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
 CR No.2084        of 2006                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
            The petitioners moved an application for execution of the<\/p>\n
decree on the plea that they were also entitled to the compensation at the<\/p>\n
same rate as was given to the other co-sharers even in absence of a reference<\/p>\n
under section 18<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
            The State contested the Application moved by the petitioners<\/p>\n
on the plea that once the petitioners had accepted the compensation by not<\/p>\n
seeking reference they were not entitled to enhanced compensation before<\/p>\n
the Executing Court.\n<\/p>\n
            In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
has placed reliance on the Division   Bench judgment of this court in the<\/p>\n
case of State of Haryana Vs. Bishan Singh and others 1981 P.L.J. 40,<\/p>\n
wherein this court was pleased to lay down as under:-<\/p>\n
            “4.     The only contention raised before us by Mr.Bhoop Singh,<\/p>\n
            learned     Additional Advocate General, Haryana, is that the<\/p>\n
            respondents could not take the benefit of the award given by<\/p>\n
            the learned Additional District Judge as they did not ask for<\/p>\n
            reference and that the reference was made by the Collector<\/p>\n
            only in respect of the claim of Kissi under section 18<\/a> of the Act.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5.      After hearing the learned counsel for he parties, in the<\/p>\n
            circumstances of the case, we are unable to agree with this<\/p>\n
            contention of the learned counsel. Admittedly, Kissi and the<\/p>\n
            respondents are co-sharers. The application for reference bore<\/p>\n
            the name of all the co-sharers. It is correct that it had been<\/p>\n
            signed only by one co-sharer but that application would be<\/p>\n
            taken to have been filed on behalf of all the co-sharers.
\n CR No.2084    of 2006                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
           Moreover, in the instant case, the appeal was filed against the<\/p>\n
           award by all the co-sharers and that appeal was allowed by a<\/p>\n
           Division Bench of this Court. The view we are taking finds full<\/p>\n
           support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in<\/p>\n
           Ch.Kehar Singh etc. Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1963<\/p>\n
           Punjab 490, wherein it has been observed thus:-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  “As I look at the matter if the property acquired is joint<\/p>\n
                  and the co-owners have no distinct and specified shares<\/p>\n
                  therein, then a reference under Section 18<\/a> of the Act by<\/p>\n
                  one of the       co-owners, for enhancement of the<\/p>\n
                  compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector<\/p>\n
                  will enure for the benefit of other co-owners as well. In<\/p>\n
                  such a case, it can be safely concluded that the co-owner,<\/p>\n
                  who is wanting enhancement in the compensation was<\/p>\n
                  also acting on behalf of the other co-owners, because<\/p>\n
                  their interests are joint and indivisible.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this court in the<\/p>\n
case of The Amritsar Improvement Trust Vs. Teja Singh and Ors 1981<\/p>\n
PLJ 41.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
           Leaned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
judgment of this court in the case of Shri Harmant Singh and others Vs.<\/p>\n
Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, Haryana and others (1987-2)<\/p>\n
PLR 188, wherein this court was pleased to hold as under:-<\/p>\n
            “5.   Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I need to<\/p>\n
            observe that the matter has been viewed in a hypertechnical
\n CR No.2084   of 2006                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
         way by the learned Additional District Judge. The award of the<\/p>\n
         Collector in a land acquisition matter is almost an offer made<\/p>\n
         by the state to compulsively purchase the land of a landowner.<\/p>\n
         He may accept the payment without demur or accept it under<\/p>\n
         protest, seeking revision of the offer in order to get just<\/p>\n
         compensation by means of a reference to the Court under<\/p>\n
         section 18<\/a> of the Act. The Court then enters upon the dispute to<\/p>\n
         determine what the land owner be paid for the compulsive<\/p>\n
         sale. What emerges in the award is just compensation due to be<\/p>\n
         paid to the landowners by the State and the Collector. Now<\/p>\n
         here, it is nobody’s case that the petitioners had accepted<\/p>\n
         compensation from the Collector without protest. The fact that<\/p>\n
         a set of other co sharers, who presumably had likewise<\/p>\n
         obtained compensation from the Collector under protest, had<\/p>\n
         successfully got the compensation land enhanced. A reference<\/p>\n
         made by       those set of co-sharers for the enhancement of<\/p>\n
         compensation would normally enure to the benefit of other co-<\/p>\n
         sharers as well, sine the land acquired was one and their<\/p>\n
         interests in every fraction of it howsoever microscopic they<\/p>\n
         were, were joint and indivisible. The mere fact that their<\/p>\n
         respective shares were defined in the record of rights being<\/p>\n
         1\/32nd share each is not synonymous to say that each, share was<\/p>\n
         distinct and specified as is the view of the learned Additional<\/p>\n
         District Judge.    For shares to be distinct and specified an<\/p>\n
         element of exclusiveness and separateness needs to come to the
\n CR No.2084      of 2006                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
             fore so that the distinction stands prominently focussed so as to<\/p>\n
             contrast with the other. No such element has been pointed out<\/p>\n
             to me except to suggest that the respective shares are so<\/p>\n
             categorized in the ownership column of the Jammbandi. That<\/p>\n
             by itself is not distinctive to deprive the petitioners the fruits of<\/p>\n
             the battle fought by their co-sharers in the Court of the District<\/p>\n
             Judge. Being joint owners effort by some is in the eye of laws<\/p>\n
             a joint effort.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this court in<\/p>\n
the case of Swarn Singh (deceased) by LRs. Vs. The State of Punjab and<\/p>\n
Ors. 1996 PLJ 193, wherein this Hon’ble Court was pleased to lay down<\/p>\n
that a reference made bythe Collector under section 18<\/a> of the Act enurs to<\/p>\n
be benefits of all other co-sharers.\n<\/p>\n
             Finally, reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in the<\/p>\n
case of Land Acquisition Collector, PSEB, Patiala Vs. Jagdish Raj and<\/p>\n
ors. 1991 PLJ 51 wherein this Court was again pleased to lay down as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, Section 18- Joint property in which co-<\/p>\n
            owners have no distinct and specified shares -Reference under<\/p>\n
            Section 18<\/a> sought by one co-owner -Other co-owners can take<\/p>\n
            advantage      of   result   of   reference–Co-owner         wanting<\/p>\n
            enhancement in compensation also acting on behalf of other co-<\/p>\n
            owners because their interests joint and indivisible.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             However, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana on the<\/p>\n
other hand placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
\n CR No.2084       of 2006                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
case of Ambey Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. 1996(1) RLR<\/p>\n
423, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:-<\/p>\n
           “4.     We accept the finding of the High Court that the<\/p>\n
           appellant had not made any application under Section 18<\/a>,<\/p>\n
           though the appellant has asserted that she did make an<\/p>\n
           application but no evidence has been placed before the High<\/p>\n
           Court or in this Court. Thus, it is difficult to accept that such an<\/p>\n
           application was in fact made before the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
           Officer within the limitation prescribed under Section 18(2)<\/a> of<\/p>\n
           the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant had not filed<\/p>\n
           any application    as required under section 18(1)<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
           section 18(2)<\/a> of the Act. Section 53<\/a> does not apply to the facts<\/p>\n
           of the case. The procedure prescribed under Section 18<\/a> and 30<\/a><\/p>\n
           is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order 1,<\/p>\n
           Rule 10 CPC. Order 1, R.10 CPC would apply to implead a<\/p>\n
           necessary or proper party to effectuate complete adjudication of<\/p>\n
           all the disputes having arisen between all the necessary or<\/p>\n
           proper parties who may be bound by the decision. That question<\/p>\n
           does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed<\/p>\n
           under the Act. As held earlier, making an application in writing<\/p>\n
           under sub-section (1)      and within the limitation prescribed<\/p>\n
           under sub-section (2) of Section 18<\/a> are conditions precedent<\/p>\n
           for the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under<\/p>\n
           Section 18<\/a>; only on its receipt, under Section 20<\/a> civil Court gets<\/p>\n
           jurisdiction to issue notice and thereafter to conduct enquiry, as
\n CR No.2084      of 2006                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
            contemplated under the Act. At that stage, the procedure of trial<\/p>\n
            etc., as contemplated under the CPC, would apply and Section<\/p>\n
            53<\/a> of the Act would become applicable. It is an admitted<\/p>\n
            position that the co-owner filed an application and had sought<\/p>\n
            reference under Section 18<\/a> in respect of his share only. So, it is,<\/p>\n
            as a fact, claims for compensation in specie and was paid<\/p>\n
            towards 1\/4th share to all the claimants. By no stretch of<\/p>\n
            imagination, the application under Section 18(1)<\/a> by one of the<\/p>\n
            co-sharers would be treated as one made on behalf of all the co-<\/p>\n
            sharers. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is not entitled<\/p>\n
            to lay any higher compensation pursuant to an award made by<\/p>\n
            the reference Court under Section 26<\/a> at the instance of one of<\/p>\n
            the co-owners.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             Learned Executing Court by placing reliance on the judgment<\/p>\n
of Hon’ble Supreme Court        has been pleased to dismiss the execution<\/p>\n
application filed by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed<\/p>\n
reliance on the judgment of this court dated 16.5.2007 to contend that the<\/p>\n
impugned order cannot be sustained. The order passed by this court in CR<\/p>\n
No.1324 of 1997 titled ‘Mohan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana<\/p>\n
and another reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            ”      This is petition against judgment dated 21.1.1987 passed<\/p>\n
            by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby execution for<\/p>\n
            payment of enhanced compensation by the land owners, now<\/p>\n
            petitioners was dismissed because there had neither been
\n CR No.2084   of 2006                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
         reference under Section 18<\/a> nor was there any application under<\/p>\n
         Section 28-A<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued that the petitioner<\/p>\n
         is a co-sharer and even if there was no reference under Section<\/p>\n
         18<\/a>, still he could file an execution and get enhanced<\/p>\n
         compensation. It is argued that in the year 1982 when the<\/p>\n
         District Judge decided reference under Section 18<\/a>, Section 28-A<\/a><\/p>\n
         of the Land Acquisition Act was not in force and therefore, no<\/p>\n
         reference\/application under Section 28-A<\/a> could be made. A<\/p>\n
         division Bench judgment of this Court reported in state of<\/p>\n
         Haryana Vs. Bishan Singh and others, 1981, P.L.J. 40 has been<\/p>\n
         relied and it is argued that the present petitioners are co-sharers.<\/p>\n
         It was further argued when there was acquisition of joint land<\/p>\n
         and there was reference under section 18<\/a> by one co sharer, then<\/p>\n
         other co-sharers were entitled to benefit. Judgment reported in<\/p>\n
         1981 PLJ 73 Punjab State Vs. Globe Motor had been relied.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               On behalf of the petitioners a copy of the execution<\/p>\n
         application has been filed, which shows that petitioners are co-<\/p>\n
         sharers with Bir Singh, who had filed reference under section<\/p>\n
         18<\/a>, which was decided by District Judge Bhiwani on 13.4.1982.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that the<\/p>\n
         judgments relied on by counsel for the petitioners are not<\/p>\n
         applicable to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               It was argued that execution application itself shows that<\/p>\n
         the shares are specified shares whereas in the judgments relied,
\n CR No.2084     of 2006                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
            the shares were not specified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  I have gone through the copy of execution application,<\/p>\n
            the judgments and the facts of he case. When one of the co-<\/p>\n
            sharers had filed a reference and there had been enhancement in<\/p>\n
            his case and there is joint Khata, then it would be proper that the<\/p>\n
            other co-sharers also get enhanced compensation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  Under these circumstances, this petition is accepted. It is<\/p>\n
            directed that petitioners, who are stated to be other co-sharers of<\/p>\n
            the same khata with Bir Singh,        shall be entitled to same<\/p>\n
            compensation as had been granted to Bir Singh.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this court in the<\/p>\n
case of State of Haryana Vs. Duli Chand 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 410.<\/p>\n
            However, it may be noticed that this court distinguished the<\/p>\n
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.<\/p>\n
Duli Chand (supra).\n<\/p>\n
            Keeping in view the facts that it were the sons and daughters of<\/p>\n
Chiranji Lal who were seeking enhancement of compensation qua the land<\/p>\n
belonging to Chiranji Lal.\n<\/p>\n
            It may be noticed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
A.Viswanatha Pillai and others Vs. Special Tahsildar for Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition No.IV and others AIR 1991 SC 1966 has also been pleased<\/p>\n
to lay down as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “2. The sole question for decision is whether in a reference<\/p>\n
            sought for by one of the co-owners whether the other co-owners<\/p>\n
            who did not expressly seek reference are entitled to enhanced
\n CR No.2084   of 2006                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
         compensation pro-rata as per their shares. It, is not in dispute<\/p>\n
         that under the partition deed, the four brothers as coparceners<\/p>\n
         kept in common the acquired property and Venkatachalam was<\/p>\n
         in management thereof and each is entitled to 1\/4 share in the<\/p>\n
         ancient Anicut and the irrigation system. It is also undisputed<\/p>\n
         that total enhanced compensation is Rs. 52,009.40 p. Therein<\/p>\n
         all the four brothers including the appellant are entitled to 1\/4<\/p>\n
         share   each.   In   the   reference    application     made   by<\/p>\n
         Venkatachalam indisputably he mentioned that the acquired<\/p>\n
         property belonged to him and his other brothers. and the<\/p>\n
         compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was<\/p>\n
         inadequate and very low. It was also stated that they should get<\/p>\n
         an enhanced amount at the figure specified in the reference<\/p>\n
         application- Undoubtedly he stated therein that he is entitled to<\/p>\n
         1 \/ 4 share. What he stated thereby was that of his entitlement<\/p>\n
         of 1\/4 share of the total enhanced compensation and obviously,<\/p>\n
         after the reference on par with his three brothers, he is entitled<\/p>\n
         to receive compensation at 1\/4 share. The Courts below<\/p>\n
         disallowed the payment to the appellants on the ground that<\/p>\n
         there is no mention in the claim petition of the partition deed;<\/p>\n
         that they are the co-owners and that there is no averment that<\/p>\n
         Venkatachalam was seeking reference under Section 18<\/a> on his<\/p>\n
         behalf and on behalf of his other three brothers. As regards the<\/p>\n
         first two grounds are concerned they are palpably incorrect. It is<\/p>\n
         seen that an express averment was made in the objections filed
\n CR No.2084   of 2006                                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
         pursuant to notice under Sections 9(3)<\/a> and 10<\/a> and also in his<\/p>\n
         reference application under Section 18<\/a> of the Act, that there<\/p>\n
         was prior partition and each of the brothers is entitled to 1\/4th<\/p>\n
         share and that they are dissatisfied with the award of the<\/p>\n
         Collector. Undoubtedly there is no express averment in the<\/p>\n
         reference application under section 18<\/a> that he is seeking a<\/p>\n
         reference on his behalf and on behalf of his three brothers. It is<\/p>\n
         contended by the counsel for the State that the pleadings are to<\/p>\n
         be strictly construed and that as the reference was sought for<\/p>\n
         only by Venkatachalam of all the six awards the other three<\/p>\n
         brothers are not entitled to any share in the enhanced<\/p>\n
         compensation. In support thereof it is also further contended<\/p>\n
         that Viswanathan and Pasupathy had only asked for reference<\/p>\n
         in respect of two awards and Sabhapathy Pillai made no request<\/p>\n
         for reference against any of the six awards made by the<\/p>\n
         Collector. It is true that Viswanathan and Pasupathy made such<\/p>\n
         request in respect of two awards and Sabhapathy did not make<\/p>\n
         any request for reference against any of the awards. But what<\/p>\n
         would be the consequence in law is the question. It is surprising<\/p>\n
         that the State having acquired the property of a citizen would<\/p>\n
         take technical objections regarding the entitlement of the claim.<\/p>\n
         The State certainly is right and entitled to resist claim for<\/p>\n
         enhancement and lead evidence in rebuttal to prove the<\/p>\n
         prevailing price as on the date of notification and ‘ ask the court<\/p>\n
         to determine the correct market value of the lands acquired
\n CR No.2084   of 2006                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
         compulsorily under the Act. Bul as regards the persons entitled<\/p>\n
         to receive compensation are concerned it has no role to play. It<\/p>\n
         is for the claimants inter se to the claim for compensation and<\/p>\n
         the country would examine and award the compensation to the<\/p>\n
         rightful person. As seen in the objections pursuant to the notice<\/p>\n
         under Ss. 9(3) and 10, Venkatachalam made necessary<\/p>\n
         averments that himself and his brothers had 1\/4 share in the<\/p>\n
         Anicut and irrigation system pursuant to the partition deed<\/p>\n
         resorted to therein. In his reference application under Section<\/p>\n
         18<\/a> also he reiterated the same and stated that the amount<\/p>\n
         awarded by the Collector was inadequate and that they were<\/p>\n
         dissatisfied with it and that they are entitled to more.’ It is<\/p>\n
         settled law that one of the coowners can file a suit and recover<\/p>\n
         the property against strangers and the decree would enure to all<\/p>\n
         the co-owners. It is equally settled law that no co-owner has a<\/p>\n
         definite right, title and interest in any particular item or a<\/p>\n
         portion thereof. On the other hand he has right, title and interest<\/p>\n
         in every part and parcel of the joint property or coparcenary<\/p>\n
         under Hindu Law by all the coparceners. In Kanta Goel v. B. P.<\/p>\n
         Pathak<\/a> (1.977) 3 SCR 412: (AIR 1977 SC- 1599), this Court<\/p>\n
         upheld an application by one of the co-owners for eviction of a<\/p>\n
         tenant for personal occupation of the co-owners.as being<\/p>\n
         maintainable. The same view was reiterated in Sri Ram<\/p>\n
         Pasricha v. Jagannath<\/a>, (1977) 1 SCR 395: (AIR 1976 SC 2335)<\/p>\n
         and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh<\/a> (dead) by Lrs. (1989) 1 SCR
\n CR No.2084   of 2006                                         14<\/span><\/p>\n
         67 : (AIR 1989 SC 758). A co-owner is as much an owner of<\/p>\n
         the entire property as a sole owner of the property. It is not<\/p>\n
         correct to say that a co-owner’s property was not its own. He<\/p>\n
         owns several parts of the composite property along with others<\/p>\n
         and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional<\/p>\n
         owner in the property. That position will undergo a change only<\/p>\n
         when partition takes place and division was effected by metes<\/p>\n
         and bounds. Therefore, a co-owner of the property is an owner<\/p>\n
         of the property acquired but entitled to receive compensation<\/p>\n
         pro rata. The State would plead no waiver nor omission by<\/p>\n
         other co-owners to seek reference nor disentitle them to an<\/p>\n
         award to the extent of their legal entitlement when in law they<\/p>\n
         are entitled to. Since the acquired property being the ancestral<\/p>\n
         coparcenary and continued to be kept in common among the<\/p>\n
         brothers and the income derived therefrom was being shared in<\/p>\n
         proportion of their shares by all the brothers it remained as joint<\/p>\n
         property. As co-.owners everyone is entitled to 1\/4 share<\/p>\n
         therein. It was also laid by this Court in a recent judgment in<\/p>\n
         Ram Kumar and Others v. Union of India [C. A. No. 195 \/ 78<\/p>\n
         decided on 21-2-1991 that it is the duty of the Collector to send<\/p>\n
         full information of the survey numbers under acquisition to the<\/p>\n
         court and make reference under section 18<\/a> and failure thereof is<\/p>\n
         illegal. The same ratio would apply to the facts in this case as<\/p>\n
         well. When one of the co-owners or coparceners made a<\/p>\n
         statement in his reference application that himself and his
\n CR No.2084     of 2006                                          15<\/span><\/p>\n
            brothers are dissatisfied with the award made by the Collector<\/p>\n
            and that they are entitled to higher compensation, it would be<\/p>\n
            clear that he was making a request, though not expressly stated<\/p>\n
            so but by necessary implication that he was acting on his behalf<\/p>\n
            and on behalf of his other co-owners or coparceners and was<\/p>\n
            seeking a reference on behalf of other co-owners as well. What<\/p>\n
            was acquired was their totality of right, title and interest in the<\/p>\n
            acquired property and when the reference was made in respect<\/p>\n
            thereof under Section 18<\/a> they are equally entitled to receive<\/p>\n
            compensation pro rata as per their shares. The courts below<\/p>\n
            committed manifest error in refusing to pass an award and<\/p>\n
            payment thereof to the appellants merely on the ground that<\/p>\n
            there was no mention in this regard in the reference application<\/p>\n
            or two of them sought reference in respect of two awards and<\/p>\n
            the last one made no attempt in their behalf. The claimants are<\/p>\n
            entitled to payment of the enhanced award by the Civil Court<\/p>\n
            pro rata of their 1\/4 share each with 15 per cent solatium and 4<\/p>\n
            per cent interest as awarded by the Civil Court. The appeals are<\/p>\n
            accordingly allowed with costs of this court.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
            It is well settled law that a co-owner has interest in the whole<\/p>\n
property and also in every parcel of it. The possession of joint property by<\/p>\n
one co-owner in the eyes of law is possession of all even if someone is<\/p>\n
actually out of possession. In view of proposition of law it would not be<\/p>\n
open to the State Government to give different rates for the same land as
\n CR No.2084     of 2006                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner would be deemed to have interest even in the property qua<\/p>\n
which the compensation has been enhanced. It is not a case where a co-<\/p>\n
owner has sold his share       at agreed rate but is a case of compulsory<\/p>\n
acquisition. Thus, the State is bound to give the same price to all the co-<\/p>\n
sharers and a person cannot be discriminated merely for want of reference<\/p>\n
unless the property is partitioned.\n<\/p>\n
             In view of the finding recorded above and law laid down by<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the settled law by this court referred to<\/p>\n
above this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and<\/p>\n
the case is remanded back to the learned Executing Court to proceed with<\/p>\n
the execution application filed by the petitioners.<\/p>\n
27.8. 2008                                   (Vinod K.Sharma)\nrp                                                Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008 CR No.2084 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2084 of 2006 Date of Decision: 27.8.2008 Smt.Parwati & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-261336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-21T08:27:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-21T08:27:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3785,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-21T08:27:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-21T08:27:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-21T08:27:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008"},"wordCount":3785,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008","name":"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-21T08:27:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-parwati-anr-vs-the-state-of-haryana-anr-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Parwati & Anr vs The State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261336","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=261336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261336\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}