- (1.) 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. The notification under S. 4(1) and the declaration under S. 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. Thereafter, notices were issued under S. 9 and after hearing the objectors the Land Acquisition Officer made his Award granting compensation at rates varying between Rs. 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. As many as 161 references were made by the Land Acquisition Officer under S. 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda who while upholding the belting increased the compensation. The compensation warded in the references ranged between Rs. 5,625 and Rs. 20,0001 per acre. Against this Award appeals were filed in the High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the appeals divided the lands into two belts and awarded compensation for the first belt up to the depth of 500 meters from the road at Rs. 15 per square yard i.e.72,600/-per acre and fixed a flat rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre for the remaining area. In addition, he awarded solatium at 15% and interest at 6% per annum. 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 courtfee paid thereon." Some of the claimants filed Letters Patent Appeals against the Award made by the learned single Judge. These appeals were partly allowed in that the compensation awarded at the flat rate of Rs. 25,000 /- was raised to Rs. 8 per square yard i.e. Rupees 38,720/ - per acre. While making that order it was observed as under: "However, the enhancement would not exceed the amount claimed in these appeals on which court-fee has already been paid."
(2.) The petitioners had filed R.F.A. No.274 1981 against the decision of the Additional Districe judge, Bhatinda in the reference made under S. 18 of the Act. In paragraph 11 of the memo of appeal the petitioner had stated as under: "That though the market price of the acquired land is not less than Rs.80,000/-per acre but the appellants are not in a position to pay a huge amount of court-fee. Thus the appellants now claim an enhancement of Rs. 4,00,000/ - on the whole of their land over and above what has been paid by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda." It was, therefore, prayed that the petitioners be paid an additional sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- over and above the compensation 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. In view of the direction contained in the order of the learned Single judge extracted above, the additional compensation awarded in appeal to the petitioner-society was restricted to Rs. 4,00,000/ - in respect of which court-fee of Rs. 6248 / - was paid. The decision of the learned Single judge was rendered on November 10, 1981. Thereafter the matter rested there. But, after a lapse of almost six years the petitioner-society preferred an application, being Civil Mise. No. 75-C/ 1 of 1987 in R. F. A. No. 274 of 1981 purporting to be under Ss. 149, 152 and 153 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the society be allowed to make good the deficiency in the court-fee and the judgment and decree dated November 10, 1981 in R.F.A. No. 274 of 1981 be so amended as to grant additional compensation with enhanced solatium and interest as per the amendment made in the Act by Act No. 68 of 1984. Several such claims made by those whose lands were acquired came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Before the Division Bench the observations of this Court in.Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarly, (1985) Suppl 2 SCR 949: AIR 1985SC 1576, were pressed into service. 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 conflict of opinion expressed by members constituting the bench while sitting singly in certain other cases. Accordingly, the learned chiefjustice of the High Court before whom the papers were laid constituted a Full Bench which was presided over by him. The decision of the Full Bench was.rendered on may 17, 1988. All such applications were dismissed. while dismissing the applications, the Full Bench took note of certain directions given by this Court but refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction on the apprehension that such relief, if granted, will encourage the practice of not paying the court-fee in the hope that as and when the valuation is determined in appeal they will invoke the jurisdiction under S. 151 of the Code for paying court-fee and 'receiving enhanced compensation. The Full Bench thought that such an undesirable practice should not be encouraged but should be put an end to at the earliest. At the same time, the Full Bench conceded that if the claimants were to file an appeal before this Court, this Court may perhaps exercise its jurisdiction and grant relief. It, therefore, felt that 'the Government should take notice of this situation and grant the compensation as prayed for by them after redetermining the same in accordance with the judgment of this case and pay the same as an ex gratia payment instead of driving the parties to the Supreme Court. The Full Bench hastened to add that this observation will not be treated as a precedent or ratio decidendi and shall be restricted to cases arising under the notification dated October 9, 1974.
(3.) On the basis of the above Full Bench decision when the pet'tioner-society's application came up before the Full Bench it passed the following order on May 17, 1988: "C. Misc. No. 75/ C-1-87 in R.F.A. No. 274 of 1981 is dismissed subject to the observations recorded in C. Misc. No. 1512 of 1985 in L.P.A. No. 235 of 1982.";