JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Executing Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, thereby holding respondents No. 1 to 4/land owners to be entitled to enhanced compensation of their acquired plot measuring 200 sq. yards as per judgment of this Court in regular first appeal. 2. State of Haryana acquired certain land which included plot measuring 200 sq. yards belonging to respondents No. 1 to 4 who had purchased the same from one Ugar Ram vide sale deed dated 20.03.1972. The land was acquired vide notification dated 19.06.1973 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’), declaration vide notification dated 15.10.1974 under Section 6 of the Act and award No. 24 dated 20.03.1975 passed by the Land Acquisition Colloctor. Some of the land owners preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act which was decided by the reference court vide award dated 20.11.1980, enhancing the compensation of their acquired land. In the first appeal in that case this Court further enhanced the compensation vide judgment dated 04.05.1989. However, respondents No. 1 to 4/ land owners herein did not prefer any reference under Section 18 of the Act. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 4 had filed suit on 28.03.2001 against State of Haryana and others which was decreed on 25.03.2005 vide decree sheet (Annexure P-1) directing the defendants to pay compensation of the plot of respondents No. 1 to 4 which was already lying deposited. In execution of the said decree, compensation amount of the plot of respondents No. 1 to 4 as per award of Land Acquisition Collector stands paid to them. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed execution petition claiming enhanced compensation at the rate awarded by reference court vide award dated 28.11.1980, alleging themselves to be co-sharers in the acquired land. The said execution petition was resisted by petitioner and proforma respondents No. 5 and 6 alleging that respondents No. 1 to 4, having not made any reference under Section 18 of the Act and having not resorted to Section 28-A of the Act, are not entitled to enhanced compensation. 5. The said execution petition was resisted by petitioner and proforma respondents No. 5 and 6 alleging that respondents No. 1 to 4, having not made any reference under Section 18 of the Act and having not resorted to Section 28-A of the Act, are not entitled to enhanced compensation. 5. Learned executing court vide impugned order dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) has held that respondents No. 1 to 4 are entitled to enhanced compensation as granted by this Court vide judgment dated 04.05.1989. Feeling aggrieved, HUDA has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P-4). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land owners(respondents No. 1 to 4) could claim enhanced compensation under Section 28-A of the Act within three months of the award by the reference Court on reference petition filed by some other land owners under Section 18 of the Act, but respondents No. 1 to 4 did not resort to the remedy under Section 28-A of the Act by filing any application thereunder within three months of the award of the reference court. It was also pointed out that even suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 had been decreed on 25.03.2005 but even thereafter, they did not avail of the remedy under Section 28-A of the Act. It was thus argued that respondents No. 1 to 4 are, therefore, not entitled to enhanced compensation. Another contention canvassed by counsel for the petitioner was that respondents No. 1 to 4 in their execution petition claimed enhanced compensation as per award dated 28.11.1980 passed by the reference court but learned executing court vide impugned order dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) has gone a step further and has granted enhanced compensation to respondents No. 1 to 4 as awarded by this Court vide judgment dated 04.05.1989 which was not even claimed by respondents No. 1 to 4 in their execution petition. 8. On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/land owners contended that they being co-sharers in the acquired land are entitled to claim enhanced compensation straight away by filing execution petition as per award of reference court and judgment of this Court in the case preferred by other co-sharers. 8. On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/land owners contended that they being co-sharers in the acquired land are entitled to claim enhanced compensation straight away by filing execution petition as per award of reference court and judgment of this Court in the case preferred by other co-sharers. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Furkan Ali versus State of Haryana and others; 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 641. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 10. According to judgment in the case of Furkan Ali (supra), when in reference under Section 18 of the Act filed by one co-sharer compensation of the acquired land is enhanced, other co-sharers of the same land may avail of the enhanced compensation by executing the same award without resorting to Section 18 or Section 28-A of the Act. The question to be determined in the instant case, therefore, is “as to whether respondents No. 1 to 4 can claim enhanced compensation as co-sharers by filing execution petition straight away without resorting to Section 18 or Section 28-A of the Act”? Answer to this question has to be in the negative i.e. against respondents No. 1 to 4. Vide decree Annexure P-1, they were held to be owners in possession of specific plot measuring 200 sq. yards and accordingly, held entitled to compensation thereof. The said compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector has already been paid to them. In that case, respondents No. 1 to 4 did not claim to be co- sharers either in khasra No. 159/3 of which their plot is a part or in any other part of the acquired land. Case of respondents No. 1 to 4 is that they purchased specific plot measuring 200 sq. yards and were owners thereof. Consequently, it cannot be said that respondents No. 1 to 4 were co-sharers in the entire acquired land or in entire land of khasra No. 159/3 or in the land for which reference under Section 18 of the Act was made at the instance of owners thereof. On the contrary, respondents No. 1 to 4 purchased specific plot measuring 200 sq. On the contrary, respondents No. 1 to 4 purchased specific plot measuring 200 sq. yards out of khasra No. 159/3 and accordingly, became owners of the said specific plot and did not become co-sharers in land of khasra No. 159/3 or in any other land out of acquired land . In view thereof, respondents No. 1 to 4 are not entitled to file execution petition to claim enhanced compensation on the ground of being co- sharers because they were not co-sharers in the acquired land but were owners of specific plot measuring 200 sq. yards. Consequently, benefit of ratio of law laid down in case of Furkan Ali (supra) is not available to respondents No. 1 to 4. On the contrary, respondents No. 1 to 4 had to resort to remedy either under Section 18 or Section 28-A of the Act so as to claim enhanced compensation. However, they did not resort to either of the said remedies and therefore, they are not entitled to enhanced compensation by executing award passed by the reference court in reference preferred by some other land owners under Section 18 of the Act. 11. Impugned order of the executing court is, therefore, illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. 12. In addition to the aforesaid, executing court has committed another grave error. Respondents No. 1 to 4 claim benefit of only award dated 28.11.1980 passed by reference court but by the impugned order, the executing court has granted them benefit of judgment dated 04.05.1989 of this Court also. The same was not permissible. 13. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Executing Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, is set aside. Execution petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 stands dismissed.