http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MR.M.GOVINDA RAJU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SPECIAL LEND ADDITIONAL LANDACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.ET

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   109        1996 SCALE  (5)558

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 24TH DAY OF JULY,1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B Pattanaik C.S.Vaidyanathan, Sr.Adv.  S.R.Setia, Shivram,  Advs.,  with him for the Appellant P.R.Ramasesh, Adv.  for Surya Kant and M.T.George, Advs. for the Respondents.                          O R D B R The following Order of the Court was delivered: Mr.M.Govinda Raju V. The Special Land Additional Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. etc.                             WITH           CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12007-8/95 & 4832-37/94      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals  arise from  the judgment of the Division Bench of  the Karnataka High Court made on November 21, 1989 in MFA No.2114/85 and batch. The only controversy raised and argued before us is: whether the High Court was justified in refusing to  permit the  appellants to pay the deficit court fees and  to enhance the compensation @ Rs.75,000/- per acre The admitted  facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, the ’Act’) was published on  September 29,  1977 acquiring  large extent of land  by   the  Bangalore   Development  Authority  for  the formation of a layout called "Byrasandra Tavarekere Madiwala Scheme" (for  short, ’BTM  Layout’).  The  Land  Acquisition Officer awarded  compensation ranging  from  Rs.10,000/-  to Rs.16,000/- per acre in 1981. On reference by judgment dated October 18,  1985, the Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.45,000/- per acre. The appellants filed the appeals in 1986 and  though they  valued the appeals at Rs.75,000/- per acre, they  paid court  fee @  Rs.60,000/- per  acre on  the basis  of   which  the   Appeals  came   to   be   numbered.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Subsequently, while  the  appeals  were  pending,  it  would appear that  in another acquisition, the XVI Addl City Civil Judge, Bangalore  enhanced the  compensation in  respect  of some other  lands @  Rs.75,000/- per acre and on that basis, the appellants  filed an  application  in  August  1989  for permission to  pay deficit  court fee.  That application was directed to be posted along with the appeals. When they came up before  the  Division  Bench,  it  held  that  since  the appellants had  restricted their  claim only  to Rs.60,000/- and paid the court fee accordingly, they are not entitled to make payment  of the additional court fee and compensation @ Rs.75,000/- per acre. Thus, these appeals.      Shri  Vaidyanathan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the appellants,  contended   that  in   Bhag  Singh  vs.  United Territory of  Chandigarh [(1985)  3 SCC  737] referred to in Scheduled  Caste  Co-operative  Land  Owning  Society  Ltd., Bhatinda vs.  Union of  India &  Ors. [(1991)  1  SCC  174], though the  appellants therein  had filed  LPA and  had paid deficit court  fee, they  had reserved  the right,  to claim higher  compensation  and  this  Court  had  awarded  higher compensation  after  condonation  of  delay  in  payment  of deficit court  fee. That  ratio was  not  upset  by  another three-Judge Bench in Schedule Caste-Co-operative Land Owning Ltd. case (supra). The ratio in the later case was upheld by the Constitution  Bench on reference in Buta Singh (Dead) by Lrs. vs.Union  of India  [(1995 5  SCC 284].  Therefore, the appellants  having   kept  the   claim  alive   for   higher compensation, though paid deficit court fee, are entitled to make good  the deficit  court fee  and to be  allowed higher compensation @ Rs.75,330/- per acre.      We find  no force in the contention. It is true that in Bhag Singh’s  case, the  appellants were directed to pay the deficit court fee and were granted enhanced compensation. In that case,  since some  of the  claimants  covered  by  same notification were  given higher  compensation and other were denied, this  Court appears to have proceeded on the premise to pay  them equal  compensation.  In  Scheduled  Caste  Co- operative Lend owning Society’s case, this Court pointed out that whereas  in that  case, the parties allowed the appeals to become  final in  the former  case and the party filed an appeal and  kept the  matter alive and denied the relief. In later case,  no opinion  was   expressed in  that behalf  on keeping alive  the claim  though no  court fee  was paid. In Buta Singh’s  case, after  the reference was answered by the Constitution Bench,  similar situation  had arisen  therein. The parties  filed the  appeal, paid the court fee paid at a particular amount  and after the arguments were heard in the matter, they  filed an application for permission to pay the deficit court  fee. The  Division Bench  did not permit them and dismissed  the petition.  Dealing with  that  situation, this Court had held that:      "The  claim   cannot  be   kept  in      uncertainty. If  in an appeal under      Section 54  of the Land Acquisition      Act, the  amount is  initially kept      low and  then  depending  upon  the      mood of the appellate court payment      of deficit  court fee  is sought to      be  made,   it  would   create   an      unhealthy practice and would become      a game  of chess  and a  matter  of      chance. That  practice would not be      conducive and  proper  for  orderly      conduct of litigation."      It would be seen that an appeal was filed under Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

54 of  the Act. The Memo of Appeal in terms of Order 41, CPC came to  be raised that the party is at liberty to determine what would  be the  rate  at  which  compensation  would  be payable for  his acquired  land. The  relevant provisions of the Court  Fees Act,  State Legislature prescribes the court fees payable  on money  claims on the Memo of Appeal. When a party chooses  to value  the appeal and court fees paid at a particular rate,  it would  be obvious  that  the  party  is seeking to  determine the  compensation in  respect  of  his land, at the rate he claims, subject to determination by the Court whether  he would  be entitled to the rate at which he valued the  appeal and laid the claim or would not at all be entitled  etc.   If  higher   compensation  is  sought  for, necessarily he  has to  pay court  fee thereon.  When higher amount was  stated in  Memo of Appeal but court Fee was paid at a  lessor amount,  it would be obvious that the appellant had valued  And restricted  his claim to the extent to which the court fee had been paid.      The  question   arises:  whether  the  party  would  be permitted to  pay the  deficit court fee at a later stage on the difference  of the  amount claimed  in  the  appeal?  As indicated earlier,  party makes  a  conscious  decision  and fixes the  valuation and  the court  fee paid;  it would  be unhealthy practice and it will not be conducive to encourage the practice  to keep  on changing the valuation and then to pay deficit court fee thereon. As seen, after the appeal was filed  by   the  appellants   they  claimed  compensation  @ Rs.75,000/- but  paid the court fee at Rs.60,000/- per acre. After the  Civil Judge  in another  case  had  enhanced  the compensation, they came forward to claim higher compensation on the  basis of that judgment. It will  not be conducive to permit the  parties to  go on  changing  the  valuation  and giving permission  to pay  the deficit  court fee for higher compensation. The  Division Bench,  therefore, was  right in refusing to  permit them  to pay  the deficit  court fee  to award enhanced compensation @ Rs.75,000- per acre.      Om Bhargava  vs. S.B.  (Mrs.) & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 662] was pressed  by the  learned counsel  for consideration . In view of  the fact  that this  Court in Banta Sing’s case had laid the  above principles per incuriam, it is not necessary for us to go into the same that being not a good law.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed No costs.