RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS 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:

(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 special leave petition 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.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.