JUDGMENT 1. - The land in Khasra Nos. 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 542 and 543 measuring 14 Bigha and 1 Biswa situated in village Ramjipura, Chainpura, Jhalana Dungri Tehsil Jaipur was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act vide notification dated 21.8.1969. Initially one Ganesh was the khatedar tenant of the land in question and after his death his two sons Mangi Lal and Kalyan Bux had succeeded. Mangilal and Kalyam Bux have also died. 2. The present petitioner is the son of Mangilal. Kalyan Bux had died during the reference. The share of Kalyan Bux was succeeded by Bhonri Lal and Jagdish. The petitioner through his father was claiming one half of the share of the total land whereas the successors of Kalyan Bux were claiming two third share of the compensation because of certain agreement between Mangilal and Kalyan Bux. 3. The compensation was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 10.1.1975, copy of which is attached as Annexure-1. The petitioner raised a dispute for a reference for claiming one half share instead of one third share. The claim of the petitioner was dismissed on 3.12.1982 vide Annexure-3. 4. The other co-sharers of the land Bhonri and Jagdish who were continuing the reference for enhancement on behalf of kalyan Bux against the award Annexure-1, ultimately succeeded in getting the compensation enhanced vide the judgment in reference made on 22.8.1989 (Annexure-4). The initial award by the Land Acquisition Officer was of an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha in regard to Banjar and Barani and Rs. 4,000/- per bigha in regard to irrigated land as per Annexure-1. This compensation was enhanced vide Annexure-4 to Rs. 20,000/- per Bigha of the land in question measuring 14 Bigha 3 Biswa and two third of the compensation was given to Bhonri and Jagdish. 5. 3,000/- per bigha in regard to Banjar and Barani and Rs. 4,000/- per bigha in regard to irrigated land as per Annexure-1. This compensation was enhanced vide Annexure-4 to Rs. 20,000/- per Bigha of the land in question measuring 14 Bigha 3 Biswa and two third of the compensation was given to Bhonri and Jagdish. 5. For the reasons that out of joint land owned by the petitioner on one side and Bhonri and Jagdish on the other side to the extent of one third and two third share, the other co-sharers were given higher rate of compensation as per Annexure-4 order dated 22.8.1989, the petitioner submitted to the authorities that the compensation cannot be less than the compensation awarded to the other co-sharers for the same land acquired under the same notification and of the same khasra numbers and submitted to the authorities that he also be given the compensation as per the compensation awarded in Annexure-4. Ultimately, his application was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 12.3.1993 vide Annexure-7, hence, the present writ petition. 6. The petitioner relies on a judgment in the case of A. Viswanatha Pillai and others Vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and others AIR 1991 SC 1966 wherein it was held that if one of the co-sharer or coparcener had claimed a higher compensation in the reference and the compensation is increased, the other coparcener of co-sharer is entitled to the same treatment and is entitled to the same compensation. It was held as under: 'A 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 a co-owner's property was not its 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. That position will undergo a change only when partition takes place and division was effected by metes and bounds. Therefore, a co-owner of the property is an owner of the property acquired but entitled to receive compensation prorata. The State would plead no waiver nor omission by other co-owners to seek reference nor disentitle them to an award to the extent of their legal entitlement when in law they are entitled to. Therefore, a co-owner of the property is an owner of the property acquired but entitled to receive compensation prorata. The State would plead no waiver nor omission by other co-owners to seek reference nor disentitle them to an award to the extent of their legal entitlement when in law they are entitled to. Since the acquired property being the ancestral coparcenary and continued to be kept in common among the brothers and the income derived therefrom was being shared in proportion of their shares by all the brothers it remained as joint property.' 'When one of the co-owners or coparceners made a statement in his reference application that himself and his brothers are dissatisfied with the award made by the Collector and that they are entitled to higher 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 behalf of other co-owners 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 Section 18 they are equally entitled to receive compensation prorata as per their shares.' 7. The petitioner must succeed. For the land acquired in question but belonging to the petitioner to the extent of one third share and belonging to Bhonri and Jagdish of two third share, compensation has been assessed at the higher rate as per Annexure-4, it cannot be said that two third of the land shall be paid more compensation and the remaining one third as less compensation. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit and enhancement of compensation as has been awarded to the other co-sharers in the land for the share possessed by the petitioner i.e. one third share of the total land acquired belonging to the petitioner and his co-sharer. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential reliefs of solatium or interest as may be applicable and payable under the Land Acquisition Act. The difference of compensation shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months.Petition Dismissed. *******