IMPORTANT POINT
In Land Acquisition Compensation Claim cases, 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.

ORDER

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. 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. 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.

3. Shri Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that in Bhag Singh v. United Territory of Chandigarh1 referred to in Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors.2, 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 Society Ltd. case (supra). The ratio in the later case was upheld by the Constitution Bench on reference in Buta Singh (dead) by Lrs. v. Union of India3. 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.75,000 per acre.

4. 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 Land 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. The 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