RAM DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGULAR First Appeal No. 389 of 1976, arising out of the land acquisition proceedings, was decided by this Court on April 27, 1979. Now, C. M. No. 1762-CI of 1989 has been filed by the appellants for permission to amend the memorandum of appeal to claim Rs. 2,50,000/- as enhanced amount of compensation instead of Rs, 1,00,000/. They have also prayed to allow them to pay the additional amount of Court-fee and accordingly, the judgment dated April 27, 1979 be recalled and modified to allow the appellants to get the actual amount of compensation payable to them.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the application has been filed after more than 10 years of the decision of the appeal by this Court. The said matter has become final between the parties and, therefore, could not be re opened after more than ten years by permitting the appellants to amend the memorandum of appeal to claim enhanced amount of compensation now, The learned counsel for the appellants referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Nand Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1988 P. L. J. 505. to contend that such a relief could be granted by this Court. He also cited the judgment of the learned Single Judge in C. M No. 1740-CI of 1985 in Regular First Appeal No. 843 of 1981, decided on April 4, 1989, in which relying upon the said Supreme Court judgment, the application was allowed. Earlier, the Full Bench of this Court in Banta Singh v. Union of India, 1988 P. L. J. 440. held that the appellate Court may permit the appellant to amend the relief asked for in Court below as also in appeal when appeal is pending. Once the appeal is disposed of, that jurisdiction is lost and that, therefore, it was not possible for the claimants to ask for amendment of the grounds so as to increase the claim for disposal of appeal. According to the learned counsel, in view of the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Nand Ram's case (supra), the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Banta Singh's case (supra), is no longer a good law,

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, we are of the considered opinion that it could not be successfully argued that the above said Supreme Court judgment has in any way overruled the afore-mentioned Full Bench judgment of this Court.