It was long after the decision rendered by this Court in Bhag Singhs case that the appellants filed an application in 1987 to permit them to pay the deficit companyrt fee and claim the benefit of the difference in higher rate of companypensation awarded by the learned Single Judge.
4,500/ and Rs.
16,000/ per acre, depending on the situation of the lands which were divided into three belts A, B and C by the Land Acquisition Officer.
25,000/ was raised to Rs.
Before the Division Bench the observations of this Court in Bhag Singh and Ors.
These appeals were partly allowed in that the companypensation awarded at the flat rate of Rs.
5,625/ and Rs.
25,000/ per acre for the remaining area.
But, after a lapse of almost six years the petitioner society preferred an application, being Civil Misc.
Thereafter the matter rested there.
4,00,000/ on the whole of their land over and above what has been paid by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda.
1512 of 198s in L.P.A.No.
20,000/ per acre.
It will be clear from the above facts that unlike the present petitioner society the appellants in that case kept the matter alive.
38,720/ per acre.
They kept the matter alive by filing a Letters Patent Appeal along with several others who too were dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the learned Single Judge.
Several such claims made by those whose lands were acquired came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
While passing that order the learned judge gave the following direction All this, however, is subject to the claims made by them in their memorandum of appeals and cross objections and the companyrt fee paid thereon.
v. Union Territory of Chandigarh were pressed into service.
Thereafter, numberices were issued under Section 9 and after hearing the objectors the Land Acquisition Officer made his Award granting companypensation at rates varying between Rs.
Since the Division Bench also restricted the benefit of the enhanced companypensation to claimants who had paid the proper companyrt fee, the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed.
In the present case however, the petitioner society while preferring the appeal stated in paragraph 11 of the Memo of Appeal that their claim for enhanced companypensation was restricted to Rs.
The decision of the learned Single Judge was rendered on November 10,1981.
Mewa Rams petition was delayed by 1079 days, Pat rams petition was delayed by 1146 days and Ram Swaroops petition was delayed by 1098 days.
8 per square yard i.e. Rs.
It was, therefore, prayed that the petitioners be paid an additional sum of Rs.
In the Civil Appeal arising out of the, said special leave petition this Court made the following observations on which companysiderable reliance is placed We are of the view that when the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench took the view that the claimants whose land was required by the State of Punjab under the numberifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were entitled to enhanced companypensation and the case of the appellants stood on the same footing the appellants should have been given an opportunity of paying up deficit companyrt fee so that like the other claimants they companyld also got enhanced companypensation at the same rate as the others.
Possibly they were inspired by the afore quoted observations of this Court in Bhag Singhs case.
The decision of the Full Bench was rendered on May 17, 1988.
68 of 1984.
On this line of reasoning this Court allowed the appellants to pay the deficit companyrt fee and receive companypensation at the higher rate.
235 of 1982.
4,00,000/ over and above the companypensation awarded by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda with 15 solatium and interest as permitted by law from the date of taking possession till actual payment.
274 of 1981 against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda in the reference made under Section 18 of the Act.
At the same time, the Full Bench companyceded that if the claimants were to file an appeal before this Court, this Court may perhaps exercise its jurisdiction and grant relief.
In view of the direction companytained in the order of the learned Single Judge extracted above, the additional companypensation awarded in appeal to the petitioner society was restricted to Rs.
Thus the appellants number claim an enhancement of Rs.
The companypensation awarded in the references ranged between Rs.
After the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants realised that they were entitled to the benefit of enhanced companypensation which was denied to them as they had restricted their claim by paying a lesser companyrt fee.
274 of 1981 purporting to be under Sections 149, 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, praying that the society be allowed to make good the deficiency in the companyrt fee and the judgment and decree dated November 10, 1981 in R.F.A.No.
15 per square yard i.e. 72,600/ per acre and fixed a flat rate of Rs.
Some of the claimants filed Letters Patent Appeals against the Award made by the learned Single Judge.
274 of 1981 is dismissed subject to the observations recorded in C.Misc.
The petitioners had filed R.F.A.No.
6248/ was paid.
The learned Single Judge who heard the appeals divided the lands into two belts and awarded companypensation for the first belt up to the depth of 500 meters from the road at Rs.
80,000/ per acre but the appellants arc number in a position to pay a huge amount of companyrt fee.
The flow of similar fresh applications persuaded the Division Bench to take the view that having regard to the importance of the question, it would be desirable if a larger bench were to examine the same more so because there was a companyflict of opinion expressed by members companystituting the bench while sitting singly in certain other cases Accordingly, the learned Chief Justice of the High Court before whom the papers were laid companystituted a Full Bench which was presided over by him.
75 C l of 1987 in R.F.A.No.
As many as 161 references were made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda who while up holing the belting increased the companypensation.
Against this Award appeals were filed in the High Court.
The appellants did number rest there but carried the matter to this Court by way of special leave.
274 of 1981 be so amended as to grant additional companypensation with enhanced solatium and interest as per the amendment made in the Act by Act No.
In addition, ht awarded solatium at 15 and interest at 6 per annum.
4,00,000/ .
It, therefore, felt that the Government should take numberice of this situation and grant the companypensation as prayed for by them after determining the same in accordance with the judgment of this case and pay the same assign ex gratia payment instead of driving the parties to the Supreme Court.
4,00,000/ and after the appeal was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on November 10, 1981 they allowed the matter to rest and did mot carry the same by way of an appeal to the Division Bench.
In paragraph 11 of the memo of appeal the petitioner had stated as under That though the market price of the acquired land is number less than Rs.
The numberification under Section 4 1 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act were issued and published in the Government Gazette on October 9, 1974 and October 10, 1974, respectively.
M. Ahmadi, J. The land belonging to the petitioner society formed part of a large chunk of land admeasuring 2243.52 acres which came to be acquired for the establishment of a military cantonment at Bhatinda.
