The principle of equal treatment and fairness in granting time to make up the deficiency in the court fee for appeals.

Headnote:
Court Fee - Land Acquisition - The court allowed the appellants two months to make up the deficiency in the court fee for their Letters Patent Appeal, setting aside the previous order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants' land was acquired, and they sought enhanced compensation through reference to the Civil Court and subsequent appeals. They filed a Letters Patent Appeal and sought permission to make up the deficiency in the court fee, which was rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants should not have been treated differently and granted them two months to make up the deficiency in the court fee for their Letters Patent Appeal, setting aside the previous order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
Issues: Treatment of appellants in seeking permission to make up the deficiency in the court fee for their appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellants should not have been treated differently and should have been granted time to make up the deficiency in the court fee, based on the factual position and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Division Bench dated 30-1-1989 and granted the appellants two months to make up the deficiency in the court fee for their Letters Patent Appeal.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The land belonging to the appellants was acquired by a notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was published on 27-3-1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by an award dated 31-3-1984 granted compensation for the acquired land. The appellant took the matter through reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. The amount of compensation was enhanced and an award was made on 6-11-1985. Still dissatisfied, the appellants approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which partially accepted the grievances of the appellants and made further enhancement in the amount of compensation. The appellants still not satisfied with the enhancement filed Letters Patent Appeal. While the Letters Patent Appeal was pending, and admittedly the judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal had not been announced, an application came to be filed by the appellants seeking permission to make up the deficiency in the court fee paid on the enhancement claimed in the Letters Patent Appeal. That application was rejected by order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 30-1-1989. That order has been put in issue before us in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in identical matters, in another batch, another Division Bench of the same High Court, under identical circumstances had granted two months time to the appellants in those cases to make the deficiency in the court fee. This factual position is not disputed by the respondents.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel that the appellants should not have been treated differently and should have been granted time to make up the deficiency in the court fee. Reliance is also placed by the appellants on the judgment of this Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears appropriate to us to allow these appeals and grant two months time from today to the appellants to make up the deficiency in the court fee in the LPAs which had been filed by them. The order of the Division Bench dated 30-1-1989 is set aside and the appeals disposed of in the terms indicated above. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1994 Supreme(SC) 226

The principle of equal treatment and fairness in granting time to make up the deficiency in the court fee for appeals.

Cases Referred (1)