A. VISWANATHA PILLAI AND ORS. versus SPECIAL TAHSILDAR FOR LAND ACQUISITION NO. IV AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 09-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A. VISWANATHA PILLAI AND ORS. 
v. 
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR E_QR LAND ACQUISITION 
NO. IV AND ORS. 
AUGUST 9, 1991 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Ss. 4, 9, 18-Land acquisition-
Hindu coparcenery property-Acquisition of-Compensation-Refe-
rence under s. 18 by one coparcener-Other coparceners not parties to 
reference-Whether a reference on behalf of all co-parceners-Entitle-
ment of enhanced compensation-Whether all coparceners entitled to 
compensation pro-rata as per their shares-Whether State should take 
technical objections to entitlement of claim. 
The three appellants and their eldest brother, under a family 
partition, which took place in 1954, kept in common certain ancestral 
properties under the management of the latter. These properties were 
acquired in pnrsuance of a notification dated 15.1.1967 under s. 4(1) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The eldest brother filed objections 
referring to the partition deed of 1954 and stated that each of the four 
brothers had 1/4 share in the properties in question. Ultimately the 
compensation was made to all the brothers at I/4th share tach. 
The eldest brother sought six references under s. 18 being dis-
satisfied with the awards. The Civil Court enhanced the compensation 
and granted an award of l/4th share thereof to the eldest brother with 
• 
solatium and interest, but did not award the balance amount to the 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
1 
appellants in their respective shares on the ground that they did not 
F 
jointly ask for the reference. Out of the remaining three brothers two 
asked for reference for two awards only and the last one did not ask for 
reference of any award. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the 
award and decrees of the civil court. Aggrieved, the appellants prefer-
red appeals by special leave to this Court. 
On the question: whether in a reference under s. 18 of the Land 
Acquisition Act sought for by one of the co-owners, the other co-
owners, who did not expressly seek reference are entitled to enhanced 
compensation pro-rata as per their shares? 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
465 
G 
H 
A 
B 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: l. I The Courts below committed a manifest error in 
refusing to pass an award and payment thereof to the appellants. The 
coparceners claimants-appellants in the instant case were entitled to 
payment of the enhanced award by the Civil Court pro-rate of their 
I/4th share each with 15 per cenl solatium and 4 per cent interest as 
awarded by the Civil Court. [471C-D I 
l.2 It was not in dispute that under the partition deed, the four 
brothers as coparceners kept in rommon the acquired property under 
the management of th"e eldest brother. The income derived therein was 
being shared in proportion to their shares by all the brothers. There-
fore, it remained as joint property. As co-owners everyone was entitled 
C 
to I/4th share therein. [468E; 470F] 
1.3 When one of the co-owners or coparceners made a statement 
in the reference application that the acquired property belonged to him 
und bis brothers, that he himself and his brothers were dissatisfied with 
the award made by the Collector and that they were entitled to higher 
D compensation, it would be clear that he was making a request, though 
not expressly stated so but by necessary implication that he was acting 
on his behalf and on behalf of his other co-owners or coparceners and 
was seeking a reference on their behalf as well. What was acquired was their 
totality of right, title and interest in the acquired property and when the 
reference was made in respect thereof under s. 18, they were equally 
E entitled to receive compensation pro-rata as per their shares. [468F; 471A-B I 
F 
G 
2.1 One of the co-owners can file a suit and recover the property 
against strangers and the decree would ensure to all the co-owners. A 
co-owner is an OW!ler of the property acquired but entitled to receive 
compensation pro-rata. [470A & El 
2.2 A co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a 
so_le owner. It is not correct to say that a co-owner's property was not 
his own. He owns several parts of the composite property along with 
others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional 
owner in the property. [470C-D I 
2.3 No co-owner has a definite right, title and interest in any 
particular item or a portion thereof. On the other hand he has right, 
title and interest in every part and p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.