Ujagar Singh, J.@mdashThis order will dispose of C.M. No. 149-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 185 of 1968, C.M. No. 143-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A.
No. 188 of 68, CM. No. 136-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 190 of 1968, C.M. No. 150-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 221 of 1968, C.M. No. 139-
C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 226 of 1968, C.M. No. 140-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 234 of 1968, C.M. No. 151-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 304
of 1968, C.M. No. 137-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 342 of 1968, CM. No. 138-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 353 of 1968, C.M. No. 887-C-I of
1986 in R.F.A. No. 449 of 1973, C.M. No. 85-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 501 of 1973 C.M. No. 194-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. NO. 532 of
1973, C.M. No. 87-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 664 of 1973, C.M. No. 1642-C-I of 1985 in R.F.A. No. 668 of 1973, C.M. No. 708-C-I of
1986 in R.F.A. No. 766 of 1975, C.M. No. 69-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 319 of 1976, C.M. No. 195-C-I of 1986, in R.F.A. No. 385 of
1976, CM. No. 81-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 387 of 1976, C.M. No. 1376-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 390 of 1976, C.M. No. 82-C-I of
1986 in R.F.A. No. 431 of 1976, C.M. No. 84-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 436 of 1976, C.M. No. 83-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 488 of 1976,
C.M. No. 65-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 514 of 1976, C.M. No. 99-C-I of 1986 in X-Objection No. 63-C-I of 76 in R.F.A. No. 563 of 1976,
C.M. No. 1405 of 1986 in X-Objection No. 38-C-I of 1979 in R.F.A. No. 1249 of 78, C.M. No. 1402-C-I of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 1974 of
1978. C.M. No. 946-C-I of 1985 in R.F.A. No. 2401 of 1980, C.M. No. 947-C-I of 1985 in R.F.A. No. 2402 of 1980, C.M. No. 948-C-I of
1985 in R.F.A. No. 2405 of 1980, C.M. No. 949-C-I of 1985 in R.F.A. No. 2411 of 1980 and C.M. No. 950-C-I of 1985, in R.F.A. No.
2413 of 1980, as they arise out of the same question of facts. In all these cases compensation was enhanced but the enhancement was made upto
the extent of court-fee paid in appeals and the cross-objections were also allowed to the extent the court fee had been paid. Earlier, in a similar
situation CM. No. 1512 of 1985 in L.P.A. No. 235 of 1982 had been referred to a Full Bench of this Court. As a result thereof, all these petitions
were directed to be heard after the decision of CM. No. 1512 of 1985 in L.P.A. No. 235 of 1982. The said Civil Miscellaneous came up for
hearing and was decided on 17th of May 1988. The Full Bench, of which I was a member, after discussing the law on the subject held as under:
We have, therefore, absolutely no doubt that the claimant shall not be permitted to claim amendment of the memorandum after the appeal had been
finally disposed of, nor can we permit the Appellants pay notional court-fees and present appeals in the hope that they can make claims for larger
amounts. Thus though before the appeal is taken up for hearing or the judgment is delivered, the party may ask for variation of the memorandum of
grounds or increasing the claim and if there are justifiable reasons the Court may permit the same and allow the deficit court-fee to be paid, once
the appeal is disposed of, he cannot claim to amend the memorandum of grounds claiming a larger relief than what he claimed originally.
As already pointed out, it is also not possible for us to give It was further held as under:
such relief because if this Court were to hold that they are entitled for amendment even after disposal of the appeal and grant such relief, then in no
land acquisition appeal, the Appellant will pay the court-fee and he will await the determination of the, compensation first and then pray that he may
be permitted to pay court-fee and get the compensation as per determination of the Court. He shall have to make a bona fide claim in the appeal
and pay Court-fee thereon in order to get a relief. If for any reason, the market value determined is more and| he is entitled to claim the same
compensation as given to a third party, he shall file an appeal against that order, satisfy the appellate Court that he is entitle for an amendment of
the claim, ask for an amendment, which relief would be given to him by the appellate Court by permitting him to amend both the lower Court
grounds as also the grounds before the appellate Court. But we have no doubt that we cannot invoke the principles enunciated by the Supreme
Court in this case though that judgment also related to the same acquisition, but in respect of a different party. As pointed out earlier, the Supreme
Court was sitting in appeal over the Bench judgment and sitting in appeal, they could give any direction to the High Court in respect of the appeal,
which is the subject-matter before them. In fact they allowed the appeal in that case.
Reference to the Supreme Court judgment is to the case Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition
collector, Chandigarh, . Ultimately, the Full Bench dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous, with no orders as to costs but directed the Government to
take notice of the situation and grant the compensation as prayed for by them after re-determining the same in accordance with the judgment of the
case and pay this same as an ex-gratia payment and not to drive the parties to file an appeal before the Supreme Court and this judgment was
restricted to the facts of the acquisition made in pursuance of the notification dated October 9, 1974, for the establishment of the military
cantonment at Bhatinda.
2. So far as the maintainability of Civil Miscellaneous No. 1512 of 1985 in L.P.A. No. 235 of 1982 (supra) is concerned the Full Bench held the
same to be not maintainable in view of the reasons mentioned above. Almost a similar view was taken earlier in Nand Ram and Ors. v. The State
of Haryana 1988 P.L.J. 506, Civil Misc. No. 692-C-I of 1984 in R.F.A. No. 1389 of 1982 decided on 11th February, 1985 by I.S. Tiwana, J.
and the said civil miscellaneous was dismissed. The matter was taken by Nand Ram and others by filing SLP before the Supreme Court and after
granting leave the civil appeal filed by Nand Ram and others was heard and it was observed that amendment of the memorandum of the appeal to
enable the Appellants to claim appropriate compensation on the basis of compensation awarded to those whose similarly situated lands were
acquired under the identical notification should have been granted by the High Court on the principle that the State cannot refuse to pay in respect
of the lands acquired under the same notification compensation at the reasonable market value reflected in the compensation awarded to the land
owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date.
Appeal of Nand Ram and others was thus, allowed and they were held entitled to claim compensation as prayed. In the present case R.F.A. Nos.
185, 188, 190, 221, 226, 234, 304, 342 and 353 of 1968 and some other R.F.As were decided by M.R. Sharma, J. as he then was by one
order dated May 12, 1978 and compensation at the rate of Rs. 7 per square yard upto the extent of court-fee paid in appeals was allowed apart
from allowing solatium and statutory interest on the enhanced compensation alongwith costs. In the various civil miscellaneous petitions referred to
above, filed in 1986 in the above noted R.F.As a prayer is made to allow the amendment of the grounds of appeal so as to enable the Appellants-
Petitioners to claim compensation at the above said rate by affixing deficiency in court-fee. In accordance with the judgment, in Nand Ram and
others (supra) by the Supreme Court, the necessary amendment is allowed and the grounds of appeal in the respective R.F.As be considered to
have been amended and the Appellants Petitioners are allowed to pay the deficiency in Court-fee, within three months from today to enable them
to claim the full compensation awarded alongwith solatium and interest as noted above.
3. R.F.As Nos. 449, 501, 532, 664 and 668 of 1973 were decided by a common judgment, in R.F.A. No. 247 of 1974 on May 16, 1979
allowing compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per square yard but this compensation was made subject to the claim made and court-fee paid by the
land owners, therefore, the benefit of the enhanced compensation could not be claimed by the Appellants-Petitioners due to deficiency in the
requisite court-fee for the enhanced amount. In Civil Miscellaneous petitions mentioned above in the said R.F.As of 1973 a prayer is made to
allow the amendment of the grounds of appeal and claim the enhanced amount, solatium and interest as granted in R.F.A. No. 247 of 1974. These
civil miscellaneous petitions are also accepted and the amendment is allowed and the grounds of appeal in the respective R.F.As be considered to
have been amended allowing deficiency in court-fee to be paid within three months from today so as to enable the Petitioners to claim enhanced
compensation, solatium and interest as alleged.
4. R.F.A. Nos. 766 of 1975 was decided,--vide orders in R.F.A. No. 228 of 1978 on April 16, 1979 whereby the claim in appeal was limited to
the court-fee paid. In Civil Miscellaneous petitions mentioned above filed in the said R.F.A. a prayer is made to allow the amendment of the
grounds of appeal and claim the enhanced amount. This civil miscellaneous is also allowed and the grounds of appeal in R.F.A. No. 766 of 1975
be considered to have been amended so as to, enable the Petitioner to make up the deficiency in court fee good, within three months for claiming
enhanced compensation, solatium and interest.
5. R.F.A. Nos. 319, 385, 387, 390, 431, 436, 488, 514 with cross objection in R.F.A. No. 563 of 1976 were decided by a common judgment
delivered in R.F.A. No. 251 of 1976 on May 21, 1979. Various civil miscellaneous petitions in the above R.F.As were filed and the prayer in
these civil miscellaneous petitions is also to seek permission to amend the grounds for claiming enhanced compensation along with solatium and
interest by paying deficient court-fee. These civil miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the three months time is granted for paying the deficient
court-fee and the grounds of appeals in the respective R.F.As be considered to have been amended.
6. R.F.A. No. 1249 of 1978 alongwith cross objection was decided along with R.F.A. No. 1278 of 1978 on 21st March, 1980. Civil
miscellaneous filed in the above said R.F.A. for permission to amend the grounds of appeal is allowed and the grounds of appeal in the R.F.A. be
considered to have been amended so as to enable the Appellant-Petitioner to claim enhanced compensation, solatium and interest by payment of
deficient court-fee and the Appellant-Petitioner is allowed three months time to pay deficient court-fee.
7. R.F.A. No. 1974 of 1978 was decided on 13th November, 1979 wherein mistake occurred in the amount of compensation. This mistake was
corrected--vide order dated 17th December, 1979. The compensation was enhanced to a higher rates of Rs. 317.50 per marla hut this claim was
limited to the amount of court-fee paid in the memorandum of appeal. The Civil Miscellaneous filed in this R.F.A. is also allowed and the
Appellants-Petitioners are allowed to pay deficient court fee, within three months so as to enable them to claim compensation at the said rate,
solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation.
8. R.F.A. Nos. 2401, 2402, 2405, 2411 and R.F.A. No. 2413 of 1980 were decided by a common judgment in R.F.A. No. 1842 of 1980 on
November 27, 1981 and again the enhanced compensation was limited to the extent of claim made and the court-fee paid thereon. On the same
reasoning civil miscellaneous filed in these R.F.As are allowed and the Petitioners are given three months time from today to enable the Appellant-
Petitioner to pay deficient court-fee so as to claim enhanced compensation at the said rate, solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation.
9. All these civil miscellaneous applications are disposed of accordingly.