Full Judgment Text
1
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5069-5070 OF 2009
Arising out of SLP© Nos.12027-12028 of 2007]
Maharunnisa & Anr. … .Appellants
VERSUS
Assistant Commissioner &
L.A.O., Bijapur ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the
impugned Judgment of the High Court as well as other
materials on record.
3. The only question that needs to be decided is whether the
appellants can be deprived of their rightful claim on
technical ground for want of requisite Court fee without
affording them opportunity to pay the deficit court fee
within a reasonable time and deny the benefit of
enhanced compensation.
2
4. In the impugned judgment, the High Court made the
following directions :-
“For the reasons stated in the judgment passed
in MFA Nos.3936, 3939 and 3943/2003 by this
Court along with cross – objections disposed of
by a common judgment dated 8.9.2006 though
this Court has fixed the market value in the
aforesaid cases at Rs.23/- per sq. ft. we fix the
market value of the lands acquired in these
cases at Rs.20/- per sq. ft. as the owners have
restricted their claim only to that extent. The
owners are entitled for other statutory benefits
and interest payable under the provisions of the
L.A. Act.”
5. From the above, it is clear that the amount of
compensation was determined at Rs.23/- per sq. ft. by
the High Court in the impugned Judgment but the
appellants were directed to be paid at the rate of Rs.20/-
per sq. ft. as the appellants had restricted their claim at
the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. ft. in respect of the lands
acquired by the respondent. In a recent decision of this
th
Court in C.A.No.4163-4165 of 2009 decided on 8 of
July, 2009, we have set aside the Judgment of the High
Court and directed it to consider payment of
compensation at the rate determined by the High Court
3
in that Judgment but not directed to be paid because of
non payment of Court Fees by the claimants/appellants.
6. In view of the decision referred to hereinabove, we are,
therefore, of the view that the impugned Judgment of the
High Court must be set aside in part. As determined by
the High Court in the impugned Judgment, we also fix
the market value of the acquired land of the appellants at
Rs. 23/- per Sq. ft.. However, the rest of the decision of
the High Court is affirmed.
7. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation shall be
directed to be paid to the appellants by the High Court if
the appellants deposit the requisite Court fees on the
aforesaid enhanced amount within four months from the
date of supply of a copy of this order to it.
8. In the event, the requisite Court fee, as directed above, is
not paid within the time specified hereinabove, the
appeals shall stand dismissed.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set
aside to the extent indicated above and the matter is
4
remitted back to the High Court for decision after giving
hearing to the parties.
10. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.
There will be no order as to costs.
……………………….J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi; .…………………….J.
August 04, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]