TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Officer under Section 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda who while up holing the belting increased the compensation. The compensation awarded in the references ranged between ₹ 5,625/- and ₹ 20,000/- per acre. Against this Award appeals were filed in the High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the appeals divided the lands into two belts and awarded compensation for the first belt up to the depth of 500 meters from the road at ₹ 15 per square yard i.e. 72,600/- per acre and fixed a flat rate of ₹ 25,000/- per acre for the remaining area. In addition, he awarded solatium at 15% and interest at 6% per annum. While passing that order the learned judge gave the following direction; All this, however, is subject to the claims made by them in their memorandum of appeals and cross-objections and the court fee paid thereon. Some of the claimants filed Letters Patent Appeals against the Award made by the learned Single Judge. These appeals were partly allowed in that the compensation awarded at the flat rate of ₹ 25,000/- was raised to ₹ 8 per square yard i.e. ₹ 38,720/- per acre. While making that order it was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the question, it would be desirable if a larger bench were to examine the same; more so because there was a conflict of opinion expressed by members constituting the bench while sitting singly in certain other cases Accordingly, the learned Chief Justice of the High Court before whom the papers were laid constituted a Full Bench which was presided over by him. The decision of the Full Bench was rendered on May 17, 1988. All such applications were dismissed. While dismissing the applications, the Full Bench took note of certain directions given by this Court but refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction on the apprehension that such relief, if granted, will encourage the practice of not paying the court fee in the hope that as and when the valuation is determined in appeal they will invoke the jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code for paying court fee and receiving enhanced compensation. The Full Bench thought that such an undesirable practice should not be encouraged but should be put an end at the earliest. At the same time, the Full Bench conceded that if the claimants were to file an appeal before this Court, this Court may perhaps exercise its jurisdiction and grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o had failed to apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Act are conferred this right to apply to the Collector for redetermination and not all those like the petitioners who had not only sought a reference under Section 18 but had also filed an appeal in the High Court against the award made by the reference court. The newly added Section 28A, therefore, clearly does not apply to a case where the claimant has sought and secured a reference under Section 18 and has even preferred an appeal to the High Court. This view, which we take on a plain reading of Section 28A, finds support from the judgment of this Court in Mewa Ram (deceased) by his Lrs. and Ors. v. State of Haryana through the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon [1986]3SCR660. 5. The second contention is based on the observations of this Court in Bhag Singh and Ors. (supra). In that case also the appellants had restricted their claim in the first appeal to the High Court by paying lesser court fee. After the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants realised that they were entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation which was denied to them as they had restricted their claim by paying a lesser cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire land at a rate below the market value. On this line of reasoning this Court allowed the appellants to pay the deficit court fee and receive compensation at the higher rate. In the present case however, the petitioner-society while preferring the appeal stated in paragraph 11 of the Memo of Appeal that their claim for enhanced compensation was restricted to ₹ 4,00,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the reference court. It is further stated in that paragraph that according to the appellants the market value of the land is not less than 80,000/- per acre but as the appellants are not in a position to pay the huge court fee, they are restricting their claim to ₹ 4,00,000/-. This was a conscious decision on the part of the present appellant. The averment in that paragraph about their incapacity to pay the court fee is doubtful having regard to the fact, that the appellants had received a substantial amount by way of compensation under the award made by the Collector as well as the reference court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that though the appellants were aware that the market value was higher, they de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the learned Single Judge was rendered in 1981 but did so after a lapse of almost six years in 1987. The Full Bench of the High Court, therefore, rightly held that to permit payment of deficit court fee for recovering enhanced compensation after a lapse of almost six years under its inherent jurisdiction would encourage the practice of not paying the court fee in the hope that as and when the valuation is determined in appeal the jurisdiction of the court can be invoked under Section 151 of the Code and the benefit of enhanced compensation can be reaped by making good the deficit court fee. We think in the facts and circumstances of the case this view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court cannot be assailed. 7. Lastly, it may be mentioned that a demand for solatium and interest at the higher rate allowed by the amended provisions of the Act was made but in view of the recent judgment of this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. etc. [1989] 178 ITR 548(SC) , the submission could be not pressed as in the present case the matter had concluded long before April 13, 1982. 8. In view of the above we do not see any merit in this petition and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
