JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2012, Annexure P-8, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., in Execution Petition No. 19-S/10 of 2002, titled Smt. Kanta Devi and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the petitioner-Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry at Nauni, District Solan, H.P., (in short 'the petitioner-University') is before this Court in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, a large chunk of land was acquired for establishment of the petitioner-University, out of which some land was jointly owned by five persons, namely, Bhagwan Singh @ Bhagwanu, Ishwar Singh, Munu, Roop Ram and Krishan, all of whom, except the last mentioned, namely, Krishan have since died and are represented through their respective legal representatives. It so happened that a reference against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector was sought jointly by Bhagwan Singh @ Bhagwanu and Ishwar Singh wherein the amount of compensation was enhanced alongwith statutory interest and other benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). However, Ishwar Singh also filed another reference petition separately in which also enhanced compensation alongwith interest and other benefits under the Act were ordered to be paid to him. Against the foregoing background, Ishwar Singh filed Execution petition No. 41 of 2000, Ishwar Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, before the learned District Judge, which stood dismissed as fully satisfied vide order dated 22.09.2001, Annexure P-1. Being aggrieved, he carried the matter in revision to this Court, in Civil Revision No. 410 of 2001, Ishwar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was also disposed of vide order dated March, 13, 2002, Annexure P-2, with the following observation: It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no amount was paid to the petitioner and in fact the entire amount of compensation stands wrongly paid to the brother of the petitioner Shri Bhagwanu alias Bhagwan Singh and that in fact the petitioner is entitled to half of the amount of compensation. If it be so, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the District Judge for realization of the amount from Shri Bhagwanu alias Bhagwan Singh and its payment to the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. If it be so, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the District Judge for realization of the amount from Shri Bhagwanu alias Bhagwan Singh and its payment to the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. On the strength of the above observation, Ishwar Singh again approached the Court of the learned District Judge by filing Execution Petition No. 19-S/10 of 2002, Ishwar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2004, Annexure P-3. 3. Still not satisfied, Ishwar Singh again carried the matter to this Court by way of CMPMO No. 347 of 2004, but since he died during pendency of the petition, his LRs., namely, Smt. Kanta Devi and others were brought on record. It was at the time of disposal of the aforesaid CMPMO No. 347 of 2004, vide judgment dated 01.09.2004, Annexure P-4, that some startling facts fully detailed in paras 5 to 7, which are reproduced below, came to light: 5. During the pendency of this petition, a report of the Registry was called for which is on part-B of the file and as per this report dated 4.4.2011 Sh. Bhagwanu was the sole petitioner in land reference No. 4-S/4 of 1977 and his legal representatives were brought on record and the amount of Rs. 4,72,444/- deposited in RFA No. 272 of 1991 alongwith interest accruing thereupon was released in favour of the legal heirs of Bhagwanu without any orders of the Court. In RFA No. 281/1991 a sum of Rs. 24,569/- was deposited and this amount alongwith interest accrued thereupon was paid to Sh. Ishwar Singh. The dispute raised is that Ishwar Singh was entitled to a much higher amount. 6. It is well settled law that when a reference is sought by one of the co-owners it inures for the benefit of all co-owners. The Apex Court in A. Viswanatha Pillai and others vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and others, AIR 1991 SC 1966 , clearly held that one co-owner acts on behalf of the entire body of co-owners and when one of the co-owner seeks reference then all the other co-owners are entitled to the benefit of the same. 7. The Apex Court in A. Viswanatha Pillai and others vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and others, AIR 1991 SC 1966 , clearly held that one co-owner acts on behalf of the entire body of co-owners and when one of the co-owner seeks reference then all the other co-owners are entitled to the benefit of the same. 7. In the present case, as pointed out above, one reference petition was filed by two brothers in which other brothers were made performa respondents but Bhagwanu also filed a separate reference petition. It appears that nobody bothered to ever find out what was the exact share of the brothers in the entire land despite the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with the Provisions of Section 90 of the Act had framed a statement in accordance with Para 55 of the Standing Order No. 28 in which the shares of various co-sharers in different khatas, khewats and khataunis were specifically recorded. I have seen that in record of both the land reference petitions these statements have been filed. None of the co-owners ever challenged the apportionment made by the Land Acquisition Officer and no reference under Section 30 was sought. Therefore, it is apparent that nobody disputed the statement made under para 55 of Standing Order No. 28. 4. Consequently, the aforesaid CMPMO No. 347 of 2004, Ishwar Singh (dead) through LRs vs. State of H.P. and others came to be disposed of with the following direction, contained in operative paras 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment dated 01.09.2011, came to be issued by this Court to the learned Executing Court: 8. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the Executing Court has to re-determine the shares of the parties in accordance with the statement made by the Land Acquisition Officer under para 55 and then find out whether all the co-owners have been paid the amount in accordance with their shares or not. In case excess amount has been paid to any co-owner and some co-owner has been paid a lesser amount then the co-owner who has been paid excess amount shall be liable to refund the excess amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. to the co-owner who has been paid a lesser amount. 9. In case excess amount has been paid to any co-owner and some co-owner has been paid a lesser amount then the co-owner who has been paid excess amount shall be liable to refund the excess amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. to the co-owner who has been paid a lesser amount. 9. The order of the learned District Judge was erroneous since from the facts on record it is obvious that a major portion of the amount has been taken by the heirs of Bhagwanu. As such the order of the learned District Judge is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Judge. The report of the Registry shall also be sent to the learned district Judge who shall determine the shares of all the co-owners in accordance with the statement framed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Para 55 of the Standing Order 28 and he shall determine the compensation payable to all the co-owners as per their shares and act in accordance with the directions issued hereinabove. Since the matter is a very old one the learned District Judge is directed to ensure that the entire process is completed latest by 31st March, 2012. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 5. The impugned order dated 31.03.2012, Annexure P-8, has been passed by the learned Executing Court in compliance of the above direction. 6. Insofar as payment of compensation under the impugned order dated 31.03.2012, Annexure P-8, to co-owners Munu (dead) through LRs, Roop Ram (dead) through LRs and Krishan, who at no stage of the proceedings had either sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act or had come forward for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Reference Court Under Section 28A of the Act, is concerned the matter is fully covered under a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as A. Viswanatha Pillai and others vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and others, AIR 1991 SC 1966 , wherein it has been held as under vide the relevant portion of para 2 of the report: 2. ... The same ratio would apply to the facts in this case as well. ... The same ratio would apply to the facts in this case as well. 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 crowners 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 pro rata as per their shares. The courts below committed manifest error in refusing to pass an award and payment thereof to the appellants merely on the ground that there was no mention in this regard in the reference application or two of them sought reference in respect of two awards and the last one mare no attempt in their behalf. The claimants are entitled to payment of the enhanced award by the civil court pro rata of their 1/4 share each with 15 per cent solatium and 4 per cent interest as awarded by the civil court. The appeals are accordingly allowed with costs of this Court. 7. The judgment in re A. Viswanatha Pillai and others, supra, has also been referred by the learned Single Judge in para 6 of the judgment dated 01.09.2011, Annexure P-4, passed in the aforesaid CMPMO No. 347 of 2004. 8. The dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) has further been reiterated in Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2003 SC 620 , vide para 5, as reproduced below: 5. Having regard to the view we propose to take and the manner of disposal intended to be given, it is unnecessary for us to even advert to the relevance or applicability of Section 28A of the Act to the case of the nature before us. Having regard to the view we propose to take and the manner of disposal intended to be given, it is unnecessary for us to even advert to the relevance or applicability of Section 28A of the Act to the case of the nature before us. The 4th respondent indisputably is a co-owner along with her children who were added as petitioners 2 to 5 to the award dated 5-2-1986, in which case, even on the first principles of law one co-owner is entitled to have the benefit of the enhanced compensation given in respect of the other co-owners in a reference made at his instance in respect of the land acquired, which belonged to all of them, jointly. So far as the fact that in this case the 4th respondent's application for reference under Section 18 was rejected by the Tribunal ultimately on the ground that the reference was made on a belated application, does not make any difference and, is no reason, in our view, to differentiate the claims of such co-owners whose claims came to be really sustained and that of the 4th respondent, for differential treatment. We are fortified to some extent in the view expressed by this Court in the decision reported in ( AIR 1991 SC 1966 ), A. Vishwanath Pillai & Ors. V. Special Tehsildar for land Acquisition. 9. Both the decisions in A. Vishwanatha Pillai, supra and Jalandhar Improvement Trust, supra, were also relied upon by this Court in CR No. 83 of 2011, Shri Dinesh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 01.05.2012. 10. The objection regarding limitation in this regard is not available to the petitioner-University as on the one hand no such objection is tenable in law and on the other it has not laid any challenge against the said judgment dated 01.09.2011 in CMPMO No. 347 of 2004, Annexure P-4. 11. 10. The objection regarding limitation in this regard is not available to the petitioner-University as on the one hand no such objection is tenable in law and on the other it has not laid any challenge against the said judgment dated 01.09.2011 in CMPMO No. 347 of 2004, Annexure P-4. 11. Now arises the question as to whether the direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 01.09.2011, Annexure P-4, in CMPMO No. 347 of 2004, Ishwar Singh (dead) through LRs vs. State of H.P. and others vide paras 8 and 9, as extracted hereinabove, has been complied with by the learned Executing Court in letter and spirit while passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2012, Annexure P-8, in Execution Petition No. 19-S/10 of 2002, Smt. Kanta Devi and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. In this regard, it shall be apt to extract below the operative part of the order contained in the last sentence of para 15: Therefore, the respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit remaining amount of compensation to the share of Ishwar Singh and Bhagwan Singh through their successor-in-interest after giving an adjustment of excess payment to the successor-in-interest of Bhagwanu of ` 1,47,334/- from the date of release 11.08.1994 in favour of successor-in-interest of Ishwar Singh and to deposit the entire share of successor-in-interest of Munu Ram, Roop Ram and petitioner Krishan including statutory interest till deposit of entire share and file be put up for compliance on 30.04.2012. 12. A perusal of the above direction gives an impression that the petitioner-University has not deposited the entire compensation including enhanced compensation alongwith interest and other benefits under the Act payable to co-owners Bhagwan Singh @ Bhagwanu and Ishwar Singh through their successors-in-interest and as such a direction has been issued to the petitioner-University to deposit the remaining amount of compensation of their share "after giving an adjustment of excess payment to the successor-in-interest of Bhagwanu of `1,47,334/- from the date of release 11.08.1994 in favour of successor-in-interest of Ishwar Singh". It would be seen that, no orders have been passed by the learned Executing Court with regard to payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the said sum of ` 1,47,334/- as ordained by this Court vide para 8 of the aforesaid judgment dated 01.09.2011, Annexure P-4, in CMPMO No. 347 of 2004, Smt. Kanta Devi & others vs. State of H.P. and others. 13. It is stated by Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner-University that a sum of `15,39,865/- (fifteen lac thirty nine thousand eight hundred sixty five) has since been deposited in the Registry of this Court by the petitioner-University towards satisfaction of the impugned order dated 31.03.2012, Annexure P-8, in Execution Petition No. 19-S/10 of 2002, in terms of order dated 29.05.2012, passed by this Court in CMP No. 676 of 2012, filed in the present petition. 14. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with the following directions to the learned Executing Court, that is, the Court of the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P.: 1. To ascertain whether the entire amount of compensation, including enhanced compensation, alongwith interest and other benefits under the Act payable in respect of the entire acquired land belonging to deceased S/Shri Bhagwan Singh @ Bhagwanu, Ishwar Singh, Munu Ram, Roop Ram through their LRs and Krishan, including the aforesaid sum of ` 15,39,865/- (fifteen lac thirty nine thousand eight hundred sixty five), mentioned in para 14 of this judgment, stands deposited by the petitioner-University and if there is any shortfall then to call upon the petitioner-University to make the same good within a stipulated period, preferably within 30 days from the order that may be passed by the learned Executing Court in this regard and then disburse the same to the persons entitled thereto as per their respective shares. If it is found that compensation, including enhanced compensation, alongwith interest and other benefits payable under the Act deposited by the petitioner-University exceeds its liability, the excess amount, if any, shall be liable to be refunded to it. 2. If it is found that compensation, including enhanced compensation, alongwith interest and other benefits payable under the Act deposited by the petitioner-University exceeds its liability, the excess amount, if any, shall be liable to be refunded to it. 2. The aforesaid sum of ` 1,47,334/- (one lac forty seven thousand three hundred thirty four) mentioned in the operative part of the impugned order dated 31.03.2012, Annexure P-8, as extracted hereinabove in para 12 of the judgment, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of release, that is, 11.08.1994 till realization, shall be liable to be adjusted against the amount of compensation, including enhanced compensation, alongwith interest and other benefits under the Act payable to the legal representatives of Shri Bhagwan Singh @ Bhagwanu. However, in case they have already received compensation, including enhanced compensation alongwith interest and other benefits payable under the Act over and above their entitlement, the excess amount to the extent of ` 1,47,334/- (one lac forty seven thousand three hundred thirty four) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of release, that is, 11.08.1994 till realization, shall be recoverable from them forthwith so that the same is made good to the legal representatives of late Shri Ishwar Singh. However, in case after adjustment/recovery, as above, the amount of compensation, including enhanced compensation alongwith interest and other benefits under the Act, already received by the legal representatives of late Shri Bhagwan Singh @ Bhagwanu, falls short of their entitlement, the same shall be liable to be made good. 3. The Registry is directed to remit the aforesaid sum of ` 15,39,865/- (fifteen lac thirty nine thousand eight hundred sixty five) deposited by the petitioner-University in the Registry in terms of order dated 29.05.2011, passed by this Court in CMP No. 676 of 2012, filed in the present petition, to the learned Executing Court, that is, the Court of the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., forthwith alongwith a copy of this Judgment for information and compliance with a request to dispose of the matter, which is quite old, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 30.06.2013. 4. The parties represented before this Court are directed through their learned counsel to appear before the learned Executing Court, the Court of the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., on 04.04.2013, which shall summon the remaining parties. 4. The parties represented before this Court are directed through their learned counsel to appear before the learned Executing Court, the Court of the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., on 04.04.2013, which shall summon the remaining parties. The petition, so also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. The requisitioned records be returned forthwith so as to reach well before the date fixed.