12. Conscious of the aforesaid legal position, Mr. P.N. Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, confined thrust of his submission only on the afore-quoted issue formulated in the writ petition. His submission was that when co-sharer was given higher compensation and land acquired being same in which the petitioners also had undivided interest, the petitioners could not be denied equal treatment. In equity also, it was argued, the function of the Courts was to do substantial justice. Such a treatment the petitioners were entitled to, on the first principles, that a co-owner of the land was entitled to same treatment as given to other co-owner. This principle applied de hors the provisions of the Act, was the submission of Mr. Lekhi. In support of this submission, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Shri Shibu Ram Mittal (Deceased) by LRs., 76 (1998) DLT 577: 1999 (49) DRJ 166 and that of Apex Court in the cases of Joginder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another , (1985) 1 SCC 231, Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh through The Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh , (1985) 3 SCC 737, A. Viswanatha Pillai and others v. The Special Tehsildar For Land Acquisition No. IV and Others , (1991) 4 SCC 17and Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. State of Punjab and Others , (2003) 1 SCC 526. Placing strong reliance on the judgment in the case of Jalandhur Improvement Trust (supra), his submission was that it was a case decided on the first principles as there also the application of the land owner was rejected by the authorities under Section 28A of the Act. Mr. Lekhi further submitted that the „first principle of law‟ in such a case would be the principle of „distributive justice‟ as explained by Salmond on Jurisprudence in Twelfth Edition by P.J. Fitzgerald in the following words:
