MANGAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also dispose of L.P.A. No. 906 of 1990 as both the appeals arise out of the same judgment of the learned Judge dated December 8, 1986, in F.A.O. No. 1039 of 1986.

(2.) The award was given by the arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act whereby the had determined the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,875/- per kanal for the acquired land of the appellants. In appeal, before the learned Single Judge, they claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- more as compensation over and above the amount which has been allowed by the arbitrator. During the pendency of the said appeal i.e. R.F.A. No. 1713/77 treated as F.A.O. No. 1039 of 1986 the claimants moved C.M. No. 1365-CI of 1983 and sought to inflate their claim to Rs. 3,65,100/- by amending the memorandum of appeal and prayed for permission to pay the requisite Court fee on the additional amount. It was declined by the learned Single Judge vide order dated December 16, 1983. It was conceded that the SLP against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 20, 1986.

(3.) When the said appeal was taken up for final hearing an argument was raised for enhancement of compensation on account of another judgment in F.A.O. No. 422 of 1977 decided on May 23, 1983 and, therefore, claimants claimed market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 300/- per marla. The same was repelled on the ground that the claimants could not be allowed more than Rs. 1,00,000/- as additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,65,100/- by amending the memorandum of appeal had already been rejected and the said order was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in the SLP on October 20, 1986. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the amount of compensation was enhanced as claimed originally in the appeal, i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- more were allowed by way of compensation. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimants have filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 162 of 1987 whereas the Union of India has filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 1990.