IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.393-CI of 2003 in RFA No.477 of 1968 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.08.2011 Nathi and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) The instant appeal was decided by this Court on 10.02.1978 determining the market rate of land in question @ Rs.7/- per square yard. However, in the appeal, the appellant-claimants had restricted their claim for compensation of Rs.10,55,000/- only and had affixed the court fee accordingly. It is useful to refer to the operative part of the judgment dated 20.02.1978 passed in RFA No.328 of 1968 in which the main judgment was written:- “Keeping in view these conclusions, the market value of the land in both the villages, Sihi and Baroli, is fixed at Rs.7/- per square yard. However, in some appeals, compensation has been claimed by the landowners at the rate of Rs.6/- per square yard. In some appeals filed by the land-owners are allowed, but they would be entitled to the amount of compensation either at the rate of Rs.7/- per square yard or the amount which is RFA No.477 of 1968 (O&M) -2- claimed by them in each appeal whichever is less. The learned State Counsel contents that in some appeals, though the claimants have claimed more amount of compensation, yet the Court fee has been paid on less amount. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the land owners will be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation only to the extent for which the Court fee has been paid. The executing Court, therefore, will closely look into each case and pay the amount of compensation to which each claimant may be entitled in view of these directions. The appeals filed on behalf of the State challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, are consequently dismissed with costs.” The instant application i.e. C.M. No.393-CI of 2003 was filed by the applicants in this Court on 28.11.2002 i.e. after 24 years and 8 months with a prayer to allow them to make up the deficiency in court fee and claim the compensation as determined by this Court and not restricting them to claim compensation as per the court fee attached. It is relevant to note that in the instant application, the applicant has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court dated 13.04.1993 passed in Civil Appeal No.3415 of 1983 which reads thus:- “It is seem that in some of the appeals, the appellants have not paid the court fee while claiming higher rate of compensation and the applications in this regard were filed in the High Court and were pending. The matters were disposed of accordingly. Mr. Madhava Reddy sought to rely upon the judgment of this Court in Gokal Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1992 SC 150 and on the other hand the learned counsel for the State relied upon the judgment of this Court in Scheduled Caste Cooperative RFA No.477 of 1968 (O&M) -3- Land Owning Society Ltd. Bhatinda Vs. U.O.I and others reported as 1991 (i) SCC 174. We do not go into the merits in their contention but suffice it to stated that the matter now pending examination by another three judgment bench. Without going into the merits and on the peculiar facts of these cases, we are inclined to permit the appellants to pay the court fee and the appellants are entitled to the same benefit of Rs.10/- per square yard. Civil Appeal Nos.3826- 27 of 1983 and Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition © Nos. 15807, 15806, 15812 and 15814 of 1983 are allowed and the appellants are permitted to pay the Court fee and they are entitled to the same compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square yard and in regard to the other appeals, they are dismissed but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs. New Delhi. April 13, 1993 Sd/- Ramaswamy, J Sd/-R.M.Sahai.” Counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Cases of Chandershekar and Others Vs. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2009, SC 3012, (2)Bhimasha Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, arising out of SLP © No.6092 of 2007,(3) Chand Kaur and others Vs. Union of India, 1994 SSC (4) 663 to contend that the appellant should be allowed to make up the deficiency in Court fee and claim compensation @ Rs.7/- per square yard. The prayer made in the application is misconceived and cannot be granted. It is a matter of record that at the time of disposal of the appeal this Court had specifically restricted the claim of the claimants to claim compensation as per the Court fee paid and at that point of time no prayer was RFA No.477 of 1968 (O&M) -4- made by the appellants as made in the instant application. Not only this the aforesaid order of this Court has never been modified/set-aside by any competent Court till date. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable, as in all these cases in spite of seeking opportunity to make up the deficiency in Court fee the High Court has not allowed them to do so at the time of disposal of the appeal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed claimants the relief in appeals against such orders. It is also relevant to mention a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Buta Singh (Dead) By LRs Appellant Vs. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1945 which reads thus:- “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 and the Court would be justified in an appropriate case to exercise the discretionary power under S.149 after giving due notice to the affected party. But in an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition 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.” Moreover, the appellants/applicants have moved this appeal after a delay of 24 years and 8 months for which no justifiable explanation is coming. For the reasons recorded above, this application is declined. August 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE