BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Revision Petitions 1101 and 1102 of 1972, which arise out of common facts and are directed against two decisions, dated 29th May, 1972, of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, by which he rejected the joint applications of the petitioners made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The petitioners are co-owners, having specific shares in a piece of land, measuring 1 Acre 3 Kanals and 13 Marlas, situate in the revenue estate of Raikot, District Ludhiana. These joint lands, along with another tract of land, were compulsorily acquired by the State for setting up a new Mandi. Necessary notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act were published in the Government Gazette on 5th September, 1969. The provisions of Section 5-A of the Act were dispensed with. A joint notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to the petitioners in October, 1969. The Collector gave his award of compensation on 13th March, 1970. The petitioners were not satisfied with the adequacy of compensation. They made joint applications to the Collector, praying for a reference to the Court under Section 13 of the Act. The Collector, accordingly, made references to the Court. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that these joint applications for reference were not competent. The learned Additional District Judge, purportedly following the rule laid down in Shangara Singh and others v. The Punjab State and another, 1970 CurLJ 644by this Court, accepted the preliminary objection and rejected the applications.

(3.) The impugned orders appear to be manifestly erroneous. The law on the point has been misconceived. It is common ground that the petitioners, who had made the applications jointly under Section 18 of the Act, were co-sharers in the land in question owning fractional shares; no partition had taken place among them. Even for the purpose of cultivation, they were in joint occupation of the land. Thus, every one of the co-sharer-petitioners had joint interest in every inch of the land in question in these two cases. That was why, the Collector served a joint notice on all the co-sharers (petitioners). The compensation was also assessed on a common basis for this piece of joint land and thereafter it was apportioned among the co-sharers concerned in accordance with the shares recorded in the Jamabandi. In such a case when the co-sharers were in joint possession of every inch of the lands the making of joint applications under Section 18 of the Act was quite competent.