Kamla vs U.T. Chandigarh

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The question involved in this revision petition is as to whether a co-owner, whose land is acquired with the other co-owners, is entitled to the same enhanced compensation determined by the Civil Court, u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

In brief, vide notification dated 09.03.1995 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land situated in village Daddu Majra in Chandigarh was acquired including the land of the petitioner. The Collector gave his award on 11.12.1995 assessing the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. The land owners, who were not satisfied with the award of the Collector, preferred as many as 58 references u/s 18 of the Act, which were referred by the Collector to the Civil Court for adjudication and were decided by the Civil Court on 19.02.2001 assessing the market price of the land so acquired @ Rs. 5,36,000/- per acre, meaning thereby, there was an enhancement of Rs. 2,36,000/- per acre by the Civil Court over and above the compensation awarded by the Collector.

When Rachpal Singh, husband of the petitioner, filed execution in LAC No. 257, the petitioner also filed an application seeking the same compensation which was determined by the Civil Court in favour of her husband who had filed reference u/s 18 of the Act, but the Executing Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner cannot claim the same compensation as the remedy lies with her to file her own reference u/s 18 or an application u/s 28A of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Patiala Improvement Trust Vs. Amar Singh and Others, in support of her contention that the co-sharer would also get the same compensation despite the fact he has not filed reference u/s 18 or application u/s 28A of the Act. She has also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Viswanatha Pillai and others Vs. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and others,

In A. Viswanatha Pillai''s case (supra), the compensation was awarded to a brother who had not preferred reference u/s 18 of the Act on the ground that the other brother was looking after his interest as a co-sharer and he was thus held entitled to the same compensation on pro rata basis.

In Patiala Improvement Trust''s case (supra), this Court, while relying upon various judgments much-less the judgment in the case of The Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, held that a co-sharer is also entitled to the same compensation despite the fact that he has not filed reference u/s 18 or application u/s 28A of the Act for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award passed by the learned Civil Court u/s 23 of the Act.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed as the learned Court below has erred in its approach in declining the application of the petitioner on the ground that the remedy lies with the petitioner to file either reference u/s 18 of the Act or an application u/s 28A of the Act for the purpose of getting the same compensation which has been determined in favour of her husband who had filed LAC No. 257 with regard to enhancement of compensation being unsatisfied with the award of the Collector who had awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.

In view thereof, the present revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set aside.