Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 849 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2007-04-17

HEMANT GUPTA

body2007
Judgment 1. The present application has been filed by the applicant-appellant for amendment of the memo of appeal and further to make good the deficiency in payment of Court fee. 2. Vide notification dated 22-5-1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ), the land in dispute was acquired for a public purpose and the Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation as Rs. 2 lacs per acre. 3. Dissatisfied with determination of compensation amount by the learned Collector, the appellant herein sought determination of the market value by the District Judge, by seeking a reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide its award dated 25-1-2000 determined the compensation as Rs. 4,87,540.25p. though the appellant has claimed a sum of Rs. 20 lacs per acre as compensation. In appeal under Section 54 of the Act, before this Court, the appellant restricted his claim to Rs. 3 lacs over and above the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. The total claim of the appellant in the appeal worked out to be Rs. 2,64,375/-. 4. By virtue of the present application, the applicant appellant sought to claim compensation at Rs. 10,64,400/- per acre over and above the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh and thus, sought to make up the deficiency in payment of the Court fee. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has admitted that the other appeals arising out of the same acquisition have since been decided by this Court and the present application has been filed after the amount of compensation was enhanced in the appeals by the other co-owners. However, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Harcharan V/s. State of Haryana, 1983 PLJ 84 and The Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda V/s. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 730, to contend that the appellant has a right to claim the amount of compensation as has been awarded to the other land owners. It is further contended that by virtue of the amendment, the applicant-appellant is only claiming parity in respect of the determination of the amount of compensation with the other land owners. 6. It is further contended that by virtue of the amendment, the applicant-appellant is only claiming parity in respect of the determination of the amount of compensation with the other land owners. 6. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Buta Singh V/s. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1945, while considering the similar question has held that the aid of Section 149, could be taken only when the party was not able to pay Court fee in circumstances beyond his control or under unavoidable circumstances, but if an appeal under Section 54 of the 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 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. 7. In the aforesaid case, the appellant has paid lesser Court fee and thereby restricted the value of the appeal. It must be taken that the appellant s claim was restricted to the amount the Court fee was paid. The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in The Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda s case (AIR 1991 SC 730) (supra) was considered and it was found that the aforesaid judgment was not meant to lay down that in spite of choosing to pay a particular Court fee, the claimants would still be entitled to pay deficient Court fee on the doubtful claim after the appeals are allowed. Similarly, in M. Govinda Raju V/s. Special and Additional Land Acquisition Officer and another etc. AIR 1996 SC 2660, the Court considered the question whether the party would be permitted to pay the deficient Court fee at a later stage on the difference of amount claimed in appeal. It was found that a 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. 8. The Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda s case (AIR 1991 SC 730) (supra) held the same view as in Harcharan s case. 8. The Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda s case (AIR 1991 SC 730) (supra) held the same view as in Harcharan s case. But the same has not been found applicable in the subsequent judgments, therefore, following the later judgments, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the appellant cannot be permitted to amend the memo of appeal and make up the deficiency in payment of Court fee. 9. It may be noticed that earlier also, the appellant has been permitted to make up the deficiency in payment of Court fee vide order dated 16-2-2001. Having failed to amend the memo of appeal so as to claim enhanced compensation before the decision of the other appeals, it is apparent by way of the present application, the applicant-appellant has tried to unsettle the conscious decision of claiming a compensation amount. 10. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the present application and the same is hereby dismissed.