R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 24-4-1999 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rewari, who dismissed the objections of the State of Haryana.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner:- Land measuring 39 kanals 9 marlas which was acquired by the Government of Haryana belonged to Chiran Ji Lal. Said Chiran Ji Lal filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 26-4-1985. In the meanwhile, Chiran Ji Lal died. the District Judge gave the award on 7-3-1989. Fateh Singh claiming himself to be the grandson of Chiran Ji Lal, and Shiv Ram and Sheela Devi filed an appeal before the High Court as RFA 4845 of 1989. This appeal was disposed of on 15-12-1995. In the appeal, Duli Chand, Revti, Shakuntla Devi and Chima Devi were proforma respondents as respondents 6 to 9. High Court enhanced the compensation by awarding Rs 1,32,000/- per acre with incidental benefits. The execution application was filed also by proforma respondents 6 to 9 and they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,32,000/-per acre as awarded by the High Court. Objections were filed by the State on the plea that these persons did not file by the appeal before the High Court, therefore, they are not entitled to claim compensation. Objections were dismissed for the following reasons:- "Compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,32,000/- per acre with consequential relief has been claimed by present DHs on the ground that they were proforma respondents. Referring to Ramesh v. State of Haryana, 1996 LACC 374, it was contended by learned ADA for LAC that execution filed by the petitioners is not maintainable as no RFA was filed by the DHs in the Hon'ble High Court. I have gone through the authority referred to by learned counsel for LAC/Objector. This authority pertains to a case where the petitioners were co-owners of the acquired land. Other claimants has succeeded in getting higher compensation in the reference. In that case it was held that the petitioners has not automatically become entitled to get same compensation. This authority does not seem to be of any help to the LAC. As such, the objections filed by S.S. Nahar, ADA, today on behalf of the LAC are dismissed." I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance I have gone through the record of the case.
(3.) IT was submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since Duli Chand, Revti, Shakuntla Devi and Chima Devi did not file an appeal before the High Court, therefore, they are not entitled to file execution application claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,32,000/- per acre as awarded by the High Court in RFA 4845 of 1989 titled as Fateh Singh v State of Haryana. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Ramesh v State of Haryana, 1996 LACC 374. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is not a case of separate ownership rather it is a case where the compensation of the land belonging to Chiran Ji Lal was enhanced by the High Court. The present respondents are the sons and daughters of Chiran Ji Lal. In these circumstances, they are entitled to the benefit of compensation of the land belonging to Chiran Ji Lal. Even Fateh Singh and others filed an appeal in the representative capacity being the grand children of Chiran Ji Lal by impleading Duli Chand and others as respondents 6 to 9.;