The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 award passed by the 1st respondent Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short). As per Ext.P4, an application for enhancement of the compensation claimed by him was held not maintainable for the reason that, it was not preferred within the time limit stipulated by the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the petitioner was one of the co-owners of the property that was acquired. The other two co-owners had preferred arbitration applications seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. The said applications were allowed and compensation payable in respect of the whole property was enhanced. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to land value at the rate at which award was passed in favour of the other co-owners. Ext.P1 is the said award.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, with respect to Ext.P1 award, it has been stated as follows :
“Even though the petitioner had not joined the arbitration petition which led to the issuance of Ext.P1, enhancement was granted for the entire land and structure acquired and 2/3rd of the enhanced amount was paid to the other co-owners retaining the W.P.(C) No.25626 of 2014 2 1/3rd due to the petitioner. Under Sec.3G(5) of the NH Act 1956 an arbitration petition is filed for enhancement by either of the parties in the LAC. In the present case two of the parties, who are co- owners of the petitioner, filed the arbitration petition and an award Ext.P1 was passed enhancing the land and structure value. Since the land value and structural value is already determined by the 1st respondent in Ext.P1, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 for the release of the 1/3rd enhanced amount due to him. Therefore Ext.P2 cannot be treated as another arbitration petition in the same proceedings.”
4. Technically, the rights of ownership of a co-owner extends to the entire property, until his share is determined by partition whereupon, the co-ownership will get converted into sole ownership. As long as the petitioner continues to be the co-owner of the property, he is entitled to compensation in his capacity as the co-owner of the property. Therefore, compensation cannot be enhanced in respect of one co-owner alone. The compensation is granted for the property that has been acquired. The petitioner is certainly within his rights to claim his share of the enhanced compensation amount as a co-owner of the property, though he himself had not sought for such enhancement. Therefore, the 1st respondent went wrong in treating Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner as a separate petition for arbitration. It was, in a sense only an application seeking disbursement of the compensation amount that was due to the petitioner. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained.
W.P.(C) No.25626 of 2014 3 For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is set aside. The 1st respondent shall disburse to the petitioner, the amount of compensation payable to him as per Ext.P1 award. The compensation shall be disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV