MR. M. GOVINDA RAJU versus THE SPECIAL LAND ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 24-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. • 
MR. M. GOVINDA RAJU 
v. 
THE SPECIAL LAND ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION 
OFFICER AND ANR. ETC. 
JULY 24, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 54 . 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 4 I. 
A 
B 
c 
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Appeal for enhancement 
of-Memo of appeal-Landowner claiming compensation @Rs. 75,000 per 
acre but paid Cowt fee @ Rs. 60, 000 per acre-Dwing pendency of appeals 
compensation @ Rs. 75, 000 per acre granted by a Civil Judge in another 
acquisition case-On that basis landowner filed application for pennission to D 
pay deficit Cowt fe,,-Jfigh Cowt holding that since the appellants had 
restlicted their claim only to Rs. 60, 000 and paid the court fee accordingly, 
they were not entitled to make payment of the additional cowt fee and 
compensation @.Rs. 75,000 per acre-Appeal-Held High Cowt was light in 
refusing to pennit the claimants to pay the deficit cowt fee for award of E 
enhanced compensation @ Rs. 75,000 per acre-A party makes a conscious 
decision and fixes the valuation and the court fee is paid accordingly-It 
would be unhealthy practice to keep on changing the valuation and then to 
pay deficit cowt fee thereon. 
Bhag Singh v. United Tenit01y of Chandigarh, [1985) 3 SCC 737; 
F 
Schedule Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union 
of India & Ors., [1991] 1 SCC 174, distinguished. 
Ruta Singh (dead) by Lrs. v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 284, relied 
on. 
Ont Bhargava v. S.B. (Mrs.) & Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 662, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4830-31 
of 1994. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.89 of the Karnataka High H 
13 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Court in M.F.A. Nos. 727 and 728 of 1984. 
B 
c 
C.S. Vaidyanathan, S.R. Setia and Shivram for the Appellant. 
P.R. Ramasesh for Surya Kant and M.T. George for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
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 
D 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 Of-
ficer awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 16,000 per acre 
E 
F 
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 Addi. 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 
G 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 @ 75,000 per acre. Thus, these appeals. 
Shri Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, con-
tended that in Bhag Singh v. United Te11ito1y of Chandigarh, [1985] 3 SCC 
H 737 referred to in Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., 
•. 
• 
~ 
M. GOVINDA RAJU v. SPL LAND ADDL. LAND ACQN. OFFICER 
15 
Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] 1SCC174, though the appellants A 
therein had filed LP A 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 free. 
That ratio was not upset by another three-Judge Bench in Schedule Cas

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.