NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5069-5070 OF 2009                      Arising out of SLP© Nos.12027-12028 of 2007]

Maharunnisa & Anr.        … .Appellants

VERSUS

Assistant Commissioner &  L.A.O., Bijapur  ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the  

impugned Judgment of the High Court as well as other  

materials on record.   

3. The only question that needs to be decided is whether the  

appellants  can  be  deprived  of  their  rightful  claim  on  

technical ground for want of requisite Court fee without  

affording them opportunity  to  pay the  deficit  court  fee  

within  a  reasonable  time  and  deny  the  benefit  of  

enhanced compensation.  

1

4. In  the  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  made  the  

following directions :-

“For the reasons stated in the judgment passed  in MFA Nos.3936, 3939 and 3943/2003 by this   Court along with cross – objections disposed of  by a common judgment dated 8.9.2006 though  this  Court  has  fixed  the  market  value  in  the  aforesaid cases at Rs.23/- per sq. ft. we fix the  market  value  of  the  lands  acquired  in  these  cases at Rs.20/- per sq. ft. as the owners have  restricted  their  claim  only  to  that  extent.  The  owners are entitled for other statutory benefits   and interest payable under the provisions of the  L.A. Act.”

5. From  the  above,  it  is  clear  that  the  amount  of  

compensation was determined at Rs.23/- per sq. ft. by  

the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  Judgment  but  the  

appellants were directed to be paid at the rate of Rs.20/-  

per sq. ft. as the appellants had restricted their claim at  

the  rate  of  Rs.20/-  per  sq.  ft.  in  respect  of  the  lands  

acquired by the respondent. In a recent decision of this  

Court  in  C.A.No.4163-4165  of  2009  decided  on  8th of  

July, 2009, we have set aside the Judgment of the High  

Court  and  directed  it  to  consider  payment  of  

compensation at the rate determined by the High Court  

2

in that Judgment but not directed to be paid because of  

non payment of Court Fees by the claimants/appellants.  

6. In view of the decision referred to hereinabove, we are,  

therefore, of the view that the impugned Judgment of the  

High Court must be set aside in part.  As determined by  

the High Court in the impugned Judgment, we also fix  

the market value of the acquired land of the appellants at  

Rs. 23/- per Sq. ft..  However, the rest of the decision of  

the High Court is affirmed.   

7. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation shall be  

directed to be paid to the appellants by the High Court if  

the  appellants  deposit  the  requisite  Court  fees  on  the  

aforesaid enhanced amount within four months from the  

date of supply of a copy of this order to it.   

8. In the event, the requisite Court fee, as directed above, is  

not  paid  within  the  time  specified  hereinabove,  the  

appeals shall stand dismissed.    

9. For  the  reasons  aforesaid,  the  impugned  order  is  set  

aside  to  the  extent  indicated  above  and  the  matter  is  

3

remitted back to the High Court for decision after giving  

hearing to the parties.   

10. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.  

There will be no order as to costs.     

……………………….J.  [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; .…………………….J. August 04, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]

4