PARKASHO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land owners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 21.2.2009, passed by the learned court below in execution proceedings, whereby the amount deposited by the State towards the share of the petitioners on account of acquisition of land, has been refused to be released in their favour.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners are co-owners of land along with Parma Nand and Sarwan Singh. The land in question was acquired by the State of Punjab vide notification dated 30.6.1998 for the purpose of developing a permanent parking area. Dissatisfied with the award, the land owners filed objections, which were decided by the learned court below on 7.10.2003 and the amount of compensation was enhanced. Reference was filed only by two of the co-sharers and not all of them. The execution was filed by all the co-sharers of the land. Even the State deposited the compensation pertaining to the entire land including the land falling to the share of the petitioners in the joint khewat, but still the learned court below, vide impugned order, while directing release of the amount of compensation to the other two co-sharers, who had filed reference before the learned court below, directed that the amount pertaining to the share of the petitioners be kept intact and be not released to them. It is against this order that the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners raised a very brief argument, namely, that in view of the settled position of law, every co-sharer is entitled to same amount of compensation, as has been granted to even one of the co-sharer, Civil Revision No. 7236 of 2009 [2] who had sought enhancement of the compensation. Even a petition under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') is also not required to be filed and the amount can be claimed by way of execution proceedings only. Reliance was placed upon Patiala Improvement Trust through its Chairman v. S. Amar Singh and others,2005 2 LACC 126. It was further submitted that even the State had deposited the amount of compensation falling to the share of the petitioners and had no objection to the release of the same, but still the learned court below refused to do the needful.