JUDGMENT :—Leave granted.

2. The appeals 5286, 5289, 5290, 5292-92/95 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1672/94, 1716/94, 3052/94, 6581 /94 and 5004-05/89 are filed against the orders of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated January 30, 1989 in C.M. No. 1519/89 and batch dismissing their applications for permission to pay additional Court-fee claiming enhanced compensation. Appeals 5287-88/95 arising out of S.L.P. 2380-81/94 filed by the Union of India arise against an order of the Division Bench dated 15-9-1992 made in C.M. No. 425 of 1992 etc. permitting the claimants to pay the additional Court-fee.

3. The admitted facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on June 8,1979. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award on March 13, 1981 determining the compensation. On references under Section 18, the Additional District Judge in his award and decree dated November 6, 1985 enhanced the compensation varying between Rs. 32,772/- to Rs. 6,250/- per acre depending upon the quality of the land. Dissatisfied therewith, the claimant filed appeal in the High Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Single Judge further enhanced the compensation by judgment and decree dated May 21, 1987. On that, a further appeal was filed and the Division Bench still enhanced the compensation varying between Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per acre depending upon the quality of the land.

4. In the Letters patent Appeal, some of the claimants valued the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre. But they paid only Court-fee of a sum of Rs. 2784/-etc. It would roughly work out at the rate of Rs. 31,000/-. After the arguments were heard and judgment was reserved, impugned applications in the first case were made on January 27,1989. The judgment was delivered on January 29,1989 enhancing the compensation. In rest of the cases. applications were filed after the judgment was pronounced and sought permission to pay deficit Court-fee claiming the enhanced compensation. The applications when came up before the Division Bench on January 30,1989 the Division Bench declined the request with the order thus:

"This application has been filed after we had settled the judgment and awaiting pronouncement. We find no ground to interfere. The application is dismissed".

Thus, these appeals.

5. Shri Ujjagar Singh, learned senior counsel, leading the claimants contended that this Court in the Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 174, had held that the parties had not kept the matter alive and so are not entitled to the payment of deficit Court-fee on the higher compensation awarded by the High Court, which view was approved by the Constitution Bench in the Buta Singh v. Union of India., S.L.P. (C) No. 1672/94. The claimants herein are entitled to pay the deficit Court-fee for receiving the enhanced compensation granted by the Division Bench as they had kept the matter alive.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has contended that there are no bona fides on the part of the claimants. They awaited the decision of the Court and sensing the mood of the Court, they came forward with an application to condone the delay to pay the deficit Court-fee. There are no bona fides in not paying the said fee earlier. The claimants are required to pay requisite Court-fee while presenting the Memorandum of Letters Patent Appeals. Since they had chosen to pay the Court-fee on the amount claimed, they would be entitled only to the extent of the Court-fee paid. The claimants would not be permitted to pay the deficit Court-fee after the appeals are listed for hearing.

7. Shri Ujjagar Singh also placed reliance on Section 149 of C.P.C. and contended that the Court can always permit the appellant to pay the deficit Court-fee and the High Court, therefore, was not right in refusing to accept the deficit Court-fee.

8. Having given anxious consideration to the resp