OWP/598/2006 of JASWANT SINGH AND ORS. Vs STATE TH.ESTATE DEPTT.AND ORS. on 30 December 2022

JUDGMENT

PER PUNEET GUPTA-J

01. The land measuring 19 Kanals comprising Khasra No.215 situate at Chak Manga Rakhwal, Tehsil Samba, was acquired by the respondent No.2 under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 as the same was already requisitioned by the Army. The Collector assessed the rate of the land as Rs.22000/- per kanal. The arbitrator was appointed on the request of Randhir Singh who along with Ram Singh was owner of the aforesaid land. The arbitrator District Judge, Jammu assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 50,000/- per kanal. The appeal preferred by Randhir Singh against the Award dated 14.08.1999 passed by the Arbitrator was dismissed against which LPA (C) No. 57/1999 was filed. The respondents herein also preferred appeal against the award passed by the arbitrator. The LPA filed by Randhir Singh and the appeal 2 OWP No. 598/2006

filed by the respondent-Union of India came to be disposed of by common judgment dated 10.02.2004 whereby the court maintained the award passed by the arbitrator, however, set aside the interest granted by the arbitrator while passing the award.

02. The case set up by the petitioners, successor-in-interest of Ram Singh, the other joint holder of the aforesaid land measuring 19 kanals is that though the petitioners herein did not apply for reference for appointment of arbitrator for enhancement of compensation of the share to which they were entitled to on the assessment made by the Collector Deputy Commissioner, yet they being also the owner of the land in question are entitled to the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- which was awarded by the arbitrator and upheld in the appeals by the Division Bench of this Court. other joint holder of the aforesaid land measuring 19 kanals is that though the petitioners herein did not apply for reference for appointment of arbitrator for enhancement of compensation of the share to which they were entitled to on the assessment made by the Collector Deputy Commissioner, yet they being also the owner of the land in question are entitled to the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- which was awarded by the arbitrator and upheld in the appeals by the Division Bench of this Court.

03. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not seek reference against the assessment made by the Collector and, therefore, cannot seek compensation at par with the claimants who were awarded enhanced compensation by the arbitrator. In any case there is delay in approaching this Court for the relief is also pleaded in the objections. that the petitioners did not seek reference against the assessment made by the Collector and, therefore, cannot seek compensation at par with the claimants who were awarded enhanced compensation by the arbitrator. In any case there is delay in approaching this Court for the relief is also pleaded in the objections.

04. Of course, it is not in dispute that Ram Singh, father of the petitioners herein and Randhir Singh, were owners of the land which was acquired by the respondents herein and that the assessment made by the Collector was with regard to the whole of the land. The reference was preferred by Randhir Singh only and he was given the enhanced compensation by the herein and Randhir Singh, were owners of the land which was acquired by the respondents herein and that the assessment made by the Collector was with regard to the whole of the land. The reference was preferred by Randhir Singh only and he was given the enhanced compensation by the 3 OWP No. 598/2006

arbitrator with regard to holding of two shares out of 19 kanals of land acquired on behalf of the respondents.

05. The only question which requires determination in the present petition is if the appellants can be held entitled to enhanced compensation as awarded by the arbitrator and upheld by the High Court except the interest part at par with Randhir Singh, the other owner of the land, of the share to which they are entitled to in the land acquired by the respondents. the appellants can be held entitled to enhanced compensation as awarded by the arbitrator and upheld by the High Court except the interest part at par with Randhir Singh, the other owner of the land, of the share to which they are entitled to in the land acquired by the respondents.

06. The learned counsels for the parties have reiterated the submissions made in their respective pleadings. in their respective pleadings.

07. The basic facts are not in dispute. The land measuring 19 kanals falling in Khasra no. 215/155 was acquired on behalf of the Army and the compensation assessed for the aforesaid land. One of the owners of the aforesaid land having 2/3[rd] share in the same filed for appointment of arbitrator as he was not satisfied with the compensation granted by the Collector and on the intervention of this court the arbitrator was appointed and the arbitrator vide Award dated 14.08.1999 enhanced the compensation from Rs.22000/- per kanal, as assessed by the Collector, to Rs.50,000/- per kanal. As mentioned above, the compensation enhanced by the arbitrator has attained finality. It may be mentioned herein that the original claimant Randhir Singh while filing the writ petition seeking appointment of arbitrator in respect of the land in question also filed the amended petition wherein it was mentioned that the land belonging to the petitioner as well as the private respondent (the successor-in-interest of Ram Singh are petitioners before this Court) has been acquired by the Army in which the petitioner therein was having two shares and the 4 OWP No. 598/2006

respondent (petitioner herein) is having one share in the land. The petitioner sought direction for appointment of arbitrator for the land measuring 19 kanals which belongs to the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. As mentioned above, the government appointed District Judge, Jammu as arbitrator under the aforesaid Act for settlement of dispute. The dispute got settled by the arbitrator qua the petitioner Randhir Singh as the compensation was awarded by the arbitrator in his favour.

08. Mr. Ved Raj Wazir, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as 1991 (4) SCC 17 titled ‘A Viswanatha Pillai vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition’ and the Judgment of Bombay High Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 119 of 2005 dated 22.06.2005 titled ‘Kamalakar Vinayak Raut Dessai vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (SIP) Gogal, Margao, Goa’ in support of his contention that though the petitioners did not specifically seek reference in terms of the Act yet being joint owners of the land in question with Randhir Singh they are entitled to the enhanced compensation as awarded by the arbitrator. The petitioners cannot be denied compensation on account of parity qua Randhir Singh in the facts and circumstances of the case.

09. Mr. Sandeep Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has referred order of the Division Bench of this court in Case bearing OWP No. 1051 of 2016 dated 02.08.2021 titled ‘Rajinder Kumar and others vs. State of J&K and another’ in support of his contention that as the petitioners did not seek reference under the Act and were satisfied with the 5 OWP No. 598/2006

compensation awarded by the Collector and also approached this court after long time of the assessment of the compensation by the Collector, therefore, they are not entitled to compensation and cannot seek parity with Randhir Singh, who had approached the Collector for enhancement of compensation.

10. The judgments cited by the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners persuade this court to accept the contention of the petitioners that they are also required to be granted compensation as granted by the arbitrator and upheld by this Court in favour of the joint owner Randhir Singh. petitioners persuade this court to accept the contention of the petitioners that they are also required to be granted compensation as granted by the arbitrator and upheld by this Court in favour of the joint owner Randhir Singh.

11. In the aforesaid judgments the courts have consistently held that the co-owner though did not approach for reference under the Land Acquisition Act yet are entitled to the compensation which has been awarded to the co-owner on an award passed by the reference court. co-owner though did not approach for reference under the Land Acquisition Act yet are entitled to the compensation which has been awarded to the co-owner on an award passed by the reference court.

12. The Apex Court has held that the co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a sole owner of the property it is not correct to say that co-owners property was not its own and that the State cannot plead no omission by other co-owners to seek reference nor disentitled them to an award to the extent of their legal entitlement when in law they are entitled to. At the cost of repetition as per the amended petition filed by Randhir Singh the reference was sought for appointment of arbitrator and had specifically mentioned of the land measuring 19 kanals having his two shares and Ram Singh having one share in the same and the compensation was infact sought for the whole land acquired by the respondents. entire property as a sole owner of the property it is not correct to say that co-owners property was not its own and that the State cannot plead no omission by other co-owners to seek reference nor disentitled them to an award to the extent of their legal entitlement when in law they are entitled to. At the cost of repetition as per the amended petition filed by Randhir Singh the reference was sought for appointment of arbitrator and had specifically mentioned of the land measuring 19 kanals having his two shares and Ram Singh having one share in the same and the compensation was infact sought for the whole land acquired by the respondents.

6 OWP No. 598/2006

13. The law laid down by the Apex Court though passed under the Land Acquisition Act yet applies on all fours in the present case which also relates to compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents cannot rely upon the judgment passed by this court in Rajinder Kumar’s case (supra) in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid judgments which apply in the case of the petitioners herein. The petitioners cannot be deprived of what is due to them though they did not seek reference for appointment of arbitrator and waited for the final determination of the case filed by the other joint owner, namely, Randhir Singh. The party in the present case should not suffer on the basis of some delay in claiming the compensation when the case of the party is otherwise at par with the other claimant who got benefited in the proceedings initiated by him and also for the reason that there is not much financial implication if the petitioners are held entitled to enhanced compensation. Acquisition Act yet applies on all fours in the present case which also relates to compensation in lieu of the land acquired by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents cannot rely upon the judgment passed by this court in Rajinder Kumar’s case (supra) in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid judgments which apply in the case of the petitioners herein. The petitioners cannot be deprived of what is due to them though they did not seek reference for appointment of arbitrator and waited for the final determination of the case filed by the other joint owner, namely, Randhir Singh. The party in the present case should not suffer on the basis of some delay in claiming the compensation when the case of the party is otherwise at par with the other claimant who got benefited in the proceedings initiated by him and also for the reason that there is not much financial implication if the petitioners are held entitled to enhanced compensation.

Conclusion

14. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- per kanal qua their 1/3[rd] share in the land measuring 19 kanals falling in Khasra No. 215/155 situate at Chak Manga Rakhwal, Tehsil Samba. The enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the petitioners within three months of passing of this judgment. held entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/- per kanal qua their 1/3[rd] share in the land measuring 19 kanals falling in Khasra No. 215/155 situate at Chak Manga Rakhwal, Tehsil Samba. The enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the petitioners within three months of passing of this judgment.

(Puneet Gupta) (Tashi Rabstan)

Judge Chief Justice (Acting)

Jammu : 30.12.2022 Pawan Chopra

Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes