- (1.) The undisputed facts are that 59 kanals 17 marlas of land jointly owned by Dilawar Singh, Jagdish Raj, Sarishta Devi and Sandal Devi was acquired by the petitioner-Electricity Board in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 4th June, 1965. Since Dilawar Singh did not feel satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, he sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and as a result thereof the trial Court though dismissed his claim yet this Court granted the relief in appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation. He realised his share of the compensation by filing an execution application. At a later stage the other co-owners, namely, Jagdish Raj, Sarishta Devi and Sandal Devi also approached the Executing Court for payment of compensation to the extent of their shares in the acquired land. This was objected to by the Electricity Board-Judgment Debtor. However, later vide the impugned order dated 30th July, 1988, the objections of the Board have been dismissed. The Board challenges this order on the sole ground that since three of claimants, namely, Jagdish Raj, Sarishta Devi and Sandal Devi had claimed no reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, they are not entitled to the advantage or benefit of the order passed by this Court on an appeal preferred by Dilawar Singh. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Board deserves to be negatived on the same very ground which has been recorded by the lower Court. The settled position of law is that in a joint property in which co-owners have no distinct and specified shares, the others can take advantage of the result of the reference sought by one of them under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Some of the relevant judgments have been adverted to by the lower Court in the order in question. I add one more to these, i.e. Bagh Singh and others v. The Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar and another, 1984 RRR 100wherein I had opined that :- "If the property acquired is joint and the co-owners have no distinct and specified shares therein, then a reference under Section 18 of the Act by one of the co-owners for the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector will enure for the benefit of the other co-owners as well. In such a case it can safely be concluded that the co-owner who is wanting enhancement in the compensation was also acting on behalf of the other co-owners because their interest is indivisible." I, therefore, find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.;