JUDGEMENT V.M. Jain, J.: CMP of. 364 of 2005: This order shall dispose of the abovementioned application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by Smt. Bhakti Devi for being impleaded as a respondent in the appeal filed by Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (S.J.V.N. Ltd.) 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present application are that Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma wife of Kaul Ram had filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter to be referred as the Act), before the Land Acquisition Collector, Nathpa Jhakri, seeking a reference the District Judge for determination of the market value of the acquired land covered by Award No. 10/1991 dated 27.2.1991 given by the Land Acquisition Collector. On receipt of the said petition, the Land Acquisition Collector made a reference to the District Judge, Shimla under Section 18 of the Act, alleging therein that Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma had not accepted the award given by him and had filed the petition for determination of the market value of the acquired land as such, he was making the said reference to the District Judge, Shimla. On receipt of the said reference, the learned District Judge ordered the registration of the same and also ordered issuance of notice to both the parties. The reference was contested by the other side and reply was filed. Various issues were framed. In the meanwhile, the reference concerning Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma was ordered to be consolidated with the main case Ram Lai Sharma Vs. H.P. S.E.B.. During the course of the proceedings, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. was filed by Smt. Dolma before the learned District Judge to the effect that petitioner No.1 Kaul Ram had expired on 26.10.1995 leaving behind her (Smt. Dolma) as his legally wedded wife and Kumari Babli (minor) as his minor daughter through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Dolma and it was prayed that the legal heirs of petitioner No.1 Kaul Ram, since deceased, may be brought on the record. After hearing both the sides, the learned District Judge allowed the said application vide order dated 8.8.1996 and ordered the legal representatives of Kaul Ram to be brought on the record. The amended Memo of Parties filed alongwith the application was taken on record. After hearing both the sides, the learned District Judge allowed the said application vide order dated 8.8.1996 and ordered the legal representatives of Kaul Ram to be brought on the record. The amended Memo of Parties filed alongwith the application was taken on record. This order was passed by the learned District Judge after noticing that the respondents before him had no objection to the same Thereafter, the learned District judge passed the award dated 9.1.2004 and enhanced the market value of the acquired land. Aggrieved against this award dated 9.1.2004 passed by the learned District judge, the S.J.V.N. Ltd. and the land Acquisition Collector filed the main appeal in this Court, bearing RFA No. 188 of 2004, impleading Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli as respondents No. 1 & 2. 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi for being impleaded as a respondent in the aforementioned appeal. It was alleged in the application that the property which was the subject matter of the reference was owned by Kaul Ram, deceased and that Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli had wrongly represented themselves as the legal heirs of Kaul Ram and had succeeded in obtaining the award dated 1.9.2004 from the District judge in their favour. It was further alleged that Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli had filed a Civil Suit against applicant Bhakti Devi in the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Rampur Bushahr, seeking declaration to the effect that Smt. Dolma was the widow and Kumari Babli was the daughter of Kaul Ram and that they were entitled to inherit the property and benefits left by Kaul Ram. It was alleged that the said suit filed by Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge on 30.6.1999. It was further alleged that in the said suit the claim of Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli that they were the heirs of Kaul Ram, deceased, being his widow and daughter, was not accepted by the Sub Judge. It was further alleged that the said judgment dated 30.6.1999 had attained finality. It was further alleged that in the said suit the claim of Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli that they were the heirs of Kaul Ram, deceased, being his widow and daughter, was not accepted by the Sub Judge. It was further alleged that the said judgment dated 30.6.1999 had attained finality. It was further alleged that in view of the findings of the Civil Court, as contained in the judgment dated 30.6.1999, Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli were not entitled to any compensation in the aforesaid reference and in the present appeal, whereas applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi was entitled to the compensation in the said reference as well as in the present appeal, admittedly being the daughter of Kaul Ram, deceased. It was further alleged that in order to effectively decide the present appeal, the presence of the applicant was necessary and as such, it was a fit case where the applicant may be impleaded as a respondent in the main appeal since it will not cause any prejudice to any party. Smt. Bhakti Devi, applicant filed her own affidavit in support of the said application. 4. Respondent Kumari Babli contested the said application and filed reply, alleging therein that the judgment dated 30.6.1999 was passed by the Civil Court at the time when replying respondent Kumar Babli was a minor and she had no knowledge of the same till she came to know about it through the present application. It was alleged that she (Babli) had attained majority in the year 2001 and she has not informed by her mother about the passing of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.6.1999 by the Sub Judge, Rampur Bushahr or about the dismissal of the suit. It was further alleged that since the said judgment was against the facts and law, the answering respondent Babli had now filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 30.61999 alongwith the application for the condonation of delay, in the Court of District Judge. It was further alleged that even otherwise it was not open to the applicant to claim any amount of compensation in the present appeal, nor the applicant could be impleaded as a party in the present appeal and she was at liberty to seek her remedy in accordance with law. It was further alleged that even otherwise it was not open to the applicant to claim any amount of compensation in the present appeal, nor the applicant could be impleaded as a party in the present appeal and she was at liberty to seek her remedy in accordance with law. It was alleged that the matter regarding payment of compensation had become final between the Land Acquisition Collector and the persons interested and no purpose will be served in impleading the applicants as a party in the present appeal. It was further alleged that even otherwise the applicant was neither a proper nor a necessary party for the effective adjudication of the present appeal. It was further alleged that the application suffers from delay, inasmuch as the payment was made by the Land Acquisition Collector to Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma in the capacity of the wife of Kaul Ram and the reference was also preferred by Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma Jointly and on the death of Kaul Ram during the reference proceedings, the answering respondent, namely, Babli was also brought on record. It was accordingly prayed that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by Smt. Bhakti Devi, be dismissed. The reply was accompanied by the affidavit of Kumar Babli @ Kamlesh. In the said reply, it was not disputed that applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi was the daughter of Kaul Ram, deceased. 5. So far as the appellants in the appeal are concerned, they have not filed any reply to the application of applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi nor the appellants have contested the said application. In fact, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before me that they have no objection in case applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi is ordered to be impleaded as Advocate(s): respondent in the present appeal, inasmuch as the person entitled to receive the compensation would received the same. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, in the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and have gone through the record carefully. 7. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, in the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and have gone through the record carefully. 7. As referred to above, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted before me that they have no objection in case applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi is ordered to be impleaded as a respondent in the present appeal, inasmuch as the person entitled to receive the compensation would receive the same. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi submitted before me that in view of the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1999 passed by the Civil Court, applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi was entitled to receive the compensation for the acquired of land belonging to Kaul Ram, since deceased, being his daughter and as such, she was entitled to be impleaded as a respondent in the present appeal, since Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli had already lost their claim before the Civil Court, claiming themselves to be the widow and daughter of Kaul Ram, deceased. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli, respondents, submitted before me that no case was made out for impleading applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi as a respondent in the present appeal, since she had not made any reference under Section 18 of the Act and as such, she could not be impleaded as a respondent in the present appeal, under order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 9. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the present application udder Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. be allowed and applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi be impleaded as a respondent in the present appeal, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. The present case is not a case where Smt. Bhakti Devi, applicant was entitled to make any reference under section 18 of the Act during the life time of Kaul Ram, since deceased. 10. The present case is not a case where Smt. Bhakti Devi, applicant was entitled to make any reference under section 18 of the Act during the life time of Kaul Ram, since deceased. On the other hand, she is claiming herself to be the legal heir of Kaul Ram, deceased, to the exclusion of Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli, in view of the judgment dated 30.6.1999 passed by the Sub Judge, Rampur Bushahr, vide which the suit filed by Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli against Smt. Bhakti Devi, claiming themselves to be the widow and daughter of Kaul Ram, had been dismissed and it was held that the said plaintiffs, namely Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli were not entitled to inherit the property left by Kaul Ram, deceased. As referred to above, the petition under Section 18 of the Act was filed by Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma. Thereupon, the Land Acquisition Collector had made the reference to the learned District Judge to the effect that Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma had not accepted the award and had filed the petition under Section 18 of the Act, seeking determination of the market value of the acquired land. The case proceeded before the District Judge in the name Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma, as the petitioners in the petition under Section 18 of the Act. It was only during the pendency of the petition under Section 18 of the Act that Smt. Dolma had filed application under order 22 Rule 3 C P.C. alleging therein that Kaul Ram had since expired on 26.10.1995 and had left behind her i.e. Smt. Dolma as his wife and Kumari Babli, as his minor daughter and as such, they may be impleaded as the legal heirs of Kaul Ram, petitioner. Since there was no opposition to this application, the learned District judge vide order dated 8.8.1996 allowed the said application and impleaded Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli as the legal heirs of Kaul Ram, petitioner and the amended Memo of Parties, showing Smt. Dolma as petitioner No.1 and Kumari Babli as petitioner No.2, was taken on record. Since there was no opposition to this application, the learned District judge vide order dated 8.8.1996 allowed the said application and impleaded Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli as the legal heirs of Kaul Ram, petitioner and the amended Memo of Parties, showing Smt. Dolma as petitioner No.1 and Kumari Babli as petitioner No.2, was taken on record. Since the Civil Court had passed the Judgment and decree dated 30.6.1999 to the effect that Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli are not entitled to inherit the property left by Kaul Ram, deceased, in my opinion, applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi, being the daughter of Kaul Ram, deceased is certainly entitled to be impleaded as a respondent in this appeal, being legal heir of Kaul Ram, deceased, who was one of the petitioners in the petition under Section 18 of the Act. 11. Since in the written reply filed by Kumari Babli, it has been alleged that she has filed an appeal before the District Judge against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1999 alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it would be most appropriate in case the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C, is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.3 in the present appeal, so that she is in a position to safeguard her interest and whosoever is held entitled to inherit the property of Kaul Ram, deceased, by the Civil Court, shall be entitled to receive the compensation in accordance with law. 12. In A. Viswanatha Pillai and others Vs. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1966, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that a co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as a sole owner of the property and it is not correct to say that a co-owners property was not its own. It was further held that a co-owners of the property is an owner of the property acquired but entitled to receive compensation pro rata. It was further held that a co-owners of the property is an owner of the property acquired but entitled to receive compensation pro rata. It was further held that when one of the co-owners or coparceners made a statement in his reference petition that he himself and his brothers are dissatisfied with the award given by the Collector and claimed higher amount of compensation, it would be clear that he was making a request that he was acting on his behalf and on behalf of his other co-owners and was seeking a reference on behalf of other co-owners as well. It was further held that when the reference was made in respect of the acquired land, all the co-owners would be entitled to receive the compensation pro rata as per their shares. In Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2003)1 Supreme Court Cases 526, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that even if the application of one of the co-owners under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the reference was made on a belated application, the same would not make any difference and would be no reason to differentiate the cialms of such co-owners whose claims came to be really sustained and that of the other co-owner whose claim was rejected, for differential treatment. Placing reliance on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1966 (supra), it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the Land Acquisition Collector was perfectly justified in giving the benefit of the enhanced compensation to all the co-owners including the co-owner whose petition was rejected by the Tribunal. 13. The authority M/s Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd., Hyderabad and another vs. Mohd. 13. The authority M/s Cyrus Investment (P) Ltd., Hyderabad and another vs. Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan and others, AIR 1994 Andhra Pradesh 199, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case, keeping in view the fact that the reference under section 18 of the Act was made by Kaul Ram and Smt. Dolma and it was only after the death of Kaul Ram that only Smt. Dolma and Kumari Babli were brought on record as the legal heirs of Kaul Ram, without impleading his daughter Smt. Bhakti Devi as one of his L.R.s and the present application for being impleaded as a party has been filed by the applicant Smt. Bhakti Devi, herself, being the legal heir of Kaul Ram, deceased, on the basis of a Civil Court decree dated 30.6.1999 passed by the Civil Court. Similar would be the position with regard to the law laid down by Patna High Court in Amar Singh Yadav & another Vs. Shanti Devi & others, 1987 all India Land Acquisition & Compensation Cases 583. 14. In view of the detailed discussion above, the present application filed by Smt. Bhakti Devi for being impleaded as a respondent is allowed and Smt. Bhakti Devi, applicant is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.3 in the main appeal, bearing RFA No. 188 of 2004. The office shall make necessary corrections in the Memo of Parties. 15. However, as already referred to above, it is made clear that whosoever is held entitle to inherit the property of Kaul Ram, deceased, by the Civil Court, shall be entitled to receive the compensation amount. CMP No. 264 and 365 of 2005; To come up on 29th September, 2005, for consideration.