Right to coparceners to receive compensation under land acquisition Act
The Courts below committed a manifest error in refusing to pass an award and payment thereof to the appel- lants. The coparceners claimants-appellants in the instant case were entitled to payment of the enhanced award by the Civil Court pro-rate of their 1/4th share each with 15 per cent solatium and 4 per cent interest as awarded by the Civil Court. [471C-D]
1.2 It was not in dispute that under the partition deed, the four brothers as coparceners kept in common the acquired property under the management of the eldest brother. The income derived therein was being shared in proportion to their shares by all the brothers. Therefore, it remained as joint property. As co-owners everyone was entitled to 1/4th 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 and his brothers, that he himself and his brothers were dissatisfied with the award made by the Collector and that they were entitled to higher compen- sation, 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 entitled to receive compensation pro-rata as per their shares. [468F; 471A-B]
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 owner of the property acquired but entitled to receive compensation pro-rata. [470A & E]
2.2 A co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a sole 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]
2.3 No co-owner has a definite right, title and inter- est in any particular item or a portion thereof. On the other hand he has right, title and interest in every part and parcel of the joint property or coparcenary under Hindu Law by all the coparceners. [470A-B]
Kanta Goel v.B.P. Pathak & Ors., [1977] 3 S.C.R. 412; Sri Ram
Pasricha v. Jagannath & Ors., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 295 and Pal Singh v. SunderSingh (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 67, relied on.
3. It is surprising that the State having acquired the property of a citizen would take technical objections re- garding the entitlement of the claim. The State certainly is right and is entitled to resist claim for enhancement and lead evidence in rebuttal to prove the prevailing price as on the date of notification and ask the court to determine the correct market value of the lands acquired compulsorily under the Act. But so far as the persons entitled to receive compensation are concerned, it has no role to play.It is for the claimants inter se to lay the claim for compensation and the Court would examine and award the compensation to the rightful person.
Supreme Court of India
A. Viswanatha Pillai And Ors vs Special Tahsildar For Land ... on 9 August, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1966, 1991 SCR (3) 465
https://www.lawweb.in/2013/08/right-to-coparceners-to-receive.html
