JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 1.12.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Execution Petition No. 13 of 2017 titled Pune Ram vs. LAC and Others, whereby the learned Executing Court has dismissed the objections having been filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor (hereinafter referred to as Judgment Debtor), Judgment Debtor has approached this Court by way of instant Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying therein for setting aside the impugned order dated 1.12.2017. 2. Facts as emerge from the record are that the respondents-Award Holders (hereinafter referred to as Award Holders) filed an Execution Petition in the learned Court below, seeking therein directions to the Judgment Debtor to pay them enhanced compensation with respect to land measuring 1-01-00 Bigha, comprised in Khasra Nos. 59 min and 90 situated in Phati Dhaugi Kothi Bunga District Kullu, H.P. 3. Judgment debtor, while refuting the claim set up in the Execution Petition, filed objections averring therein that the petition having been filed by the Award Holders, seeking therein enhancement of compensation qua the estate of Pune Ram son of Lajje Ram to the extent of 1/6th share is not maintainable. Judgment Debtor claimed before the learned Executing Court that Tek Ram was missing for the last 40 years and he was not alive at the time of passing of Award by the Land Acquisition Collector, Kullu. Further claimed that neither Tek Ram filed any reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter, referred to as Act) nor filed an application under Section 28A of the Act and as such, after passing of the Award, present application for enhancement of amount of compensation is not maintainable. Judgment Debtor also claimed that Lajje Ram was father of Tek Ram, Narayan Singh and Tedhi Singh, and Narayan Singh and his sister Lachhmu Devi are alive and they are entitled to inherit the estate of Tek Ram being 2nd class legal heirs and the mutation in favour of the present Award Holders has been wrongly attested and accepted by the revenue agency. Judgment Debtor further averred in its objections/reply that the Land Acquisition Collector paid amount to one Leela Chand son of Heera Chand, who was alleged to be the nephew of said Tek Ram, on the basis of Special Power of Attorney, but later on it was found that he was not entitled for any compensation on the basis of Special Power of Attorney. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record, this court finds that there is no dispute with regard to joint ownership, if any, of Tek Ram as well as co-sharers, who have already received amount on account of enhancement made by learned Additional District Judge vide Award No. 29/03:41/04 in Reference No. 71/03:10/04. Record clearly reveals that Tek Ram was missing for the last 40 years and Award holders had filed a suit for declaration that they are legal heirs of deceased Tek Ram. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lahul and Spiti at Kullu allowed the aforesaid suit having been filed by the Award Holders vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2013 and declared them to be the rightful heirs of deceased Tek Ram, who was missing for the last 40 years. It also emerges from the record that on the basis of aforesaid decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahul and Spiti at Kullu, mutation of inheritance on the basis of “Makfool-ul-Khabri” was attested and sanctioned in favour of the Award Holders. Since no appeal what-so-ever was filed against the aforesaid Judgment and Decree passed by the civil court, the same has already attained finality. 6. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel representing Award Holders vehemently argued that the Award holders are/were well within their right to approach the learned Executing Court by way of application under Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking enhancement of compensation on the basis of award passed by learned Additional District Judge in the reference petition filed by other co-owners qua the same land. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel representing Judgment Debtor was unable to point out any document available on record suggestive of the fact that Judgment and Decree dated 2.8.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahul and Spiti at Kullu was even put to challenge by any person, who claims himself/herself to be the legal heir of Tek Ram. 8. The question, whether a co-owner can seek enhancement of compensation qua the acquisition of land in Execution proceedings, without having filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act, stands duly answered by this Court in Dinesh Kumar and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, AIR 2012 HP 68 , wherein it has been specifically held that co-owner cannot be denied the enhanced amount of compensation on the basis of award under Section 28A of the Act, even if he/she had not filed claim petition before the court. It would be profitable to extract para nos. 5 to 9 of the aforesaid judgment herein-below: “5. The prayer for enhanced compensation and interest etc. has been declined by the learned Reference Court mainly on the ground that as the petitioners did not come forward for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court dated 05.11.2007, Annexure P-2, under Section 28-A of the Act, they were precluded from laying claim for enhanced compensation and interest etc. under Section 146 CPC. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Deputy Advocate General with the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents and gone through the records. 7. I have no hesitation to say at the very outset that the learned Reference Court has not addressed the issue involved in the matter in the right perspective even despite the fact that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Viswanatha Pillai and Others vs. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 17 : AIR 1991 SC 1966 and Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2003 SC 620 , was brought to its notice on behalf of the petitioners who relief upon the same in support of their claim. 8. 8. In the case of A. Viswanatha Pillai and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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. 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 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 made 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.” 9. Thus, it is more than clear that even a co-sharer who has not sought reference to the court is entitled for enhanced compensation pro-rata in accordance with his share in the acquired land.” 9. Reliance is also placed on Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in V. Viswanatha Pillai and Others vs. Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition No. IV and Others, AIR 1991 SC 1966 , wherein it has been held as under:- “2. The sole question for decision is whether in a reference Sought for by one of the co-owners whether the other co- owners who did not expressly seek reference, are entitled to enhanced compensation pro-rata as per their shares. The sole question for decision is whether in a reference Sought for by one of the co-owners whether the other co- owners who did not expressly seek reference, are entitled to enhanced compensation pro-rata as per their shares. It is not in dispute that under the partition deed, the four brothers as coparceners kept in common the acquired property and Venkatachalam was in management thereof and each are entitled to 1/4 share in the ancient Anicut and the irrigation system. It is also undisputed that total enhanced compensation is Rs. 52,009.40 p. Therein all the four brothers including the appellant are entitled to 1/4 share each. In the reference application made by the Venkatachalam indisputably he mentioned that the acquired property be- longed to him and his other brothers and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and very low. It was also stated that they Should get an enhanced amount at the figure specified in the reference application. Undoubted he stated therein that he is entitled to 1/4 share. What he stated thereby was that of his entitlement of 1/4 share of the total enhanced compensation and obviously, after the reference on par with his three brothers, he is entitled to receive compensation at 1/4 share. The Courts below disallowed the payment to the appellants on the ground that there is no mention in the claim petition of the partition deed; that they are the co- owners and that there is no averment that the Venkatachalam was seeking reference under section 18 on his behalf and on behalf of his other three brothers. As regards the first two grounds are concerned they are palpably incorrect. It is seen that an express averment was made in the objections filed pursuant to notice under section 9(3) and 10 and also in his reference application under section 18 of the Act, that there was prior partition and each of the brothers are entitled to 1/4th share and that they are dissatisfied with the award of the Collector. Undoubtedly there is no express averment in the reference application under section 18 that he is seeking a reference on his behalf and on behalf of his three brothers. Undoubtedly there is no express averment in the reference application under section 18 that he is seeking a reference on his behalf and on behalf of his three brothers. It is contended by the counsel for the State that the pleadings are to be strictly construed and that as the reference was sought for only by Venkatachalam of all the six awards the other three brothers are not entitled to any share in the enhanced compensation. In support thereof it is also further contended that Viswanathan and Pasupathy had only asked for reference in respect of two awards and Sabhapathy Pillai made no request for reference against any of the six awards made by the Collector. It is true that Viswanathan and Pasupathy made such request in respect of two awards and Sabhapathy did not make any request for reference against any of the awards. But what would be the consequence in law is the question. It is surprising that the State having acquired the property of a citizen would Teke technical objections regarding the entitlement of the claim. The State certainly is right and 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 as regards 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. As seen in the objections pursuant to the notice under section 9(3) and 10, Venkatchalam made necessary averments that himself and his brothers had 1/4 share in the Anicut and irrigation system pursuant to the partition deed referred to therein. In his reference application under section 18 also he reiterated the same and stated that the amount awarded by the Collector was in adequate and that they were dissatisfied with it and that they are entitled to more. It is settled law that one of the co-owners can file a suit and recover the property against strangers and the decree would enure to all the co-owners. It is equally settled law that no co-owner has a definite right, title and interest in any particular item or a portion thereof. It is settled law that one of the co-owners can file a suit and recover the property against strangers and the decree would enure to all the co-owners. It is equally settled law that no co-owner has a definite right, title and interest 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 co-parcenery under Hindu Law by all the coparceners. In Kanta Goel vs. B.P. Pathak and Others, (1977) 3 SCR 412 , this Court upheld an application by one of the co-owners for eviction of a tenant for personal occupation of the co-owners as being maintainable. The same view was reiterated in Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and Others, (1977) 1 SCR 395 and Pal Singh vs. Sunder Singh (dead) by LRs. and Others, (1989) 1 SCR 67 . 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 Tekes 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 pro-rata. 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 co-parcenary and continued to be kept in common among the brothers and the income derived therein was being shared in proportion of their shares by all the brothers it remained as joint property. As co-owners everyone is entitled to 1/4 share therein. It was also laid by this Court in a recent judgment in Ram Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1991) 1 SCR 649 that it is the duty of the Collector to send full information of the survey numbers under acquisition to the court and make reference under section 18 and failure thereof is illegal. It was also laid by this Court in a recent judgment in Ram Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1991) 1 SCR 649 that it is the duty of the Collector to send full information of the survey numbers under acquisition to the court and make reference under section 18 and failure thereof is illegal. The same ratio would apply to the facts in this case as well. When one of. the co-owner 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 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 made 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, AIR 2003 SCC 620 case titled as Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. State of Punjab and Others.” 10. It is apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that co-owners, who have/had not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, are also entitled to enhanced compensation on pro-rata basis as per their shares. It is apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that co-owners, who have/had not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, are also entitled to enhanced compensation on pro-rata basis as per their shares. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that co-owners of Award Holders had filed petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and in those proceedings amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was enhanced and as such Award Holders being co-owners qua the land acquired for construction of Parvati HEP at Phati Dhaugi are also entitled for enhanced amount of compensation. 11. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned court below, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence as well as law and as such, the same is accordingly upheld. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.