1. Land acquisition compensation — Appeal filed with court fee paid for lower amount — Application to pay deficit court fee to enhance claim refused. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1113
1996(5) Supreme 771
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
M. Govinda Raju -Appellant
versus
Special Land Additional Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4830-31 of 1994
Decided on 24-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advocate, S.R. Setia, Shivram, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.R. Ramasesh, Advocate for Surya Kant and M.T. George, Advocates.
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.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 4-Notification under-Compensation Claim-Appeal u/s 54-Appellants valued appeals at Rs. 75,000/- per acre-They paid Court- fee @ Rs.60,000/- per acre-Subsequently application filed for permission to pay deficit Court-fee-Maintainability-Whether appellants are entitled to make payment of additional Court fee and compensation @ Rs.75,000/- per acre?-(No)-It will not be conducive to permit parties to go on changing valuation and giving permission to pay deficit Court fee for higher compensation-(Court Fees Act-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 41).
Held : 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. (Para 5)
Further held : 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. (Para 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether appellants can pay deficit court fees to enhance compensation claims after initially restricting the claim through the payment of lower court fees. (Para 3 )
3. Changing valuation and paying deficit court fees based on other judgments creates an unhealthy practice and disrupts the orderly conduct of litigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. A party restricting their claim by paying court fees at a specific rate cannot subsequently pay deficit court fees to enhance the claim. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 8 )
6. Can a party in a land acquisition appeal pay deficit court fees at a later stage to increase their compensation claim?
No. When a party chooses to value an appeal and pay court fees at a particular rate, they restrict their claim to that extent. Permitting subsequent changes to valuation and payment of deficit fees would be an unhealthy practice and contrary to the orderly conduct of litigation. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. What is the legal effect of paying a court fee lower than the amount claimed in the Memo of Appeal?
Paying a court fee at a lower amount than stated in the Memo of Appeal indicates that the appellant has valued and restricted their claim to the extent of the court fee actually paid. (Para 5 )
8. How does the court view the practice of adjusting claim valuations based on the outcome of other similar cases during pending litigation?
The court views this as an unhealthy practice, describing it as a game of chess and a matter of chance, which is not conducive to the proper and orderly conduct of litigation. (Para 4 , 6 )
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 :
