ORDER T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The controversy in this CRP is as to whether the court fee can be paid later in respect enhanced claim which is sought to be included by way of amendment. 2. Though the learned Government pleader relied upon the dictum of the Supreme Court in M. Govinda Raju Vs. Special Land Additional Land Acquisition Officer and Another, JT 1996 (1) SC 109, where the Supreme Court has held as follows: It would be seen that an appeal was filed under Section 54 of the Act. The memo of Appeal in terms of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure came to be raised that the party is a 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 to 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 rare 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 lesser 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. As against this learned Counsel Mr. S.P. Shankar appearing for the Petitioner has relied on a ruling of the Supreme Court decided by the Full Bench in Gokal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1992 SC 150 , to the following effect. It has been mentioned before us that in some of these cases, court fee has not been paid to cover the entire amount of compensation now awarded. Though formally a petition of amendment of valuation has not been filed, having regard to long lapse of time, we permit the oral request that the claim be amended appropriately and direct that the Appellant will be paid the enhanced compensation as calculated above on the payment of court-fee in accordance with law. 3. Though formally a petition of amendment of valuation has not been filed, having regard to long lapse of time, we permit the oral request that the claim be amended appropriately and direct that the Appellant will be paid the enhanced compensation as calculated above on the payment of court-fee in accordance with law. 3. Another decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is in case of Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576 , is to the following effect- We are of he view that when the learned single Judge and the Division Bench took the view that the claimants whose land was acquired by the State of Punjab under the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, were entitled to enhanced compensation and the case of the Appellant stood on the same footing, the Appellants should have been given an opportunity of paying up the deficit court fee so that, like other claimants, they could also get enhanced compensation at the same rate as the others. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench should not have, in our opinion, adopted a technical approach and denied the benefit of enhanced compensation to the Appellants merely because they had not initially paid the proper amount of court-fee. It must be remembered that this was not a dispute between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the Appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law, the state was bound to pay to the Appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District Judge, there is no reason why the Appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the Appellants would be tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the Appellants on payment of less than the true market value. 4. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court decided by three Judges, this CRP is allowed and the amendment sought for is granted. It need not be said that the amendment follow payment of court fee and there cannot be two opinion about the same.