/1994 INSC 0248/
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2 
PETITIONER: BUTA SINGH         Vs.RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT01/03/1994BENCH: ACT: HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:            ORDER1.   In   this   case   the   question   is   whether    thepetitioner/claimant is entitled to pay the deficit court feeafter  the  appeals are allowed by condoning  the  delay  inpayment  thereof.   The High Court refused  to  condone  thedelay and following the earlier order, dismissed the appeal.On  similar  situation, number of matters  have  been  filedbefore  this Court.  Learned counsel for the  petitioner  infairness  has brought to our notice a recent order  of  thisCourt  in  Chand  Kaur v. Union  of  India1.  Therein  theirLordships of the two-Judge Bench were pleased to follow  thedecision  reported  in  Bhag Singh  v.  Union  Territory  ofChandigarh2 and allowed the appeals, condoned the delay  anddirected to compute the benefit of enhanced compensation andstatutory  benefits.   Earlier a three-Judge Bench  of  thisCourt  has considered that whether the High Court  would  bejustified in refusing to condone the delay and permitting topay  the deficit court fee in S.C. Cooperative  Land  OwningSociety Ltd. v. Union of India3 and held that the refusal tocondone the delay and not directing to pay the court fee wasjustified  and this Court did not interfere with the  order.The  Bench disposing of Chand Kaur case' does not appear  tohave  been  noticed nor brought to its  notice  the  bindingprecedent of three-Judge Bench.+  From the Judgment and Order dated 30-1-1989 of  the  HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana in C. Misc.  No. 1519 of 1989 inLPA No. 173 of 19881 (1994) 4 SCC 6632 (1985) 3 SCC 737: AIR 1985 SC 15763 (1991) 1 SCC 1745612. Earlier there is a three-Judge Bench judgment in which  aprayer  was made for condonation of delay and  direction  topay  the court fee.  While the appeals were allowed by  thatcourt,  therein  it  was  stated  that  a  batch  of   casesconcerning  the same acquisition was disposed of giving  thebenefit  of condoning the delay in paying the deficit  courtfee  and  giving entitlement to the  enhanced  compensation.That  case was cited before the three-Judge Bench  and  thatwas distinguished.  Later the three-Judge Bench judgment  inS.C. Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India3is  being  followed.   In view of the  latest  decision,  anuncertainty would be created whether it would be permissible

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2 
to  file  the appeals without paying proper  court  fee  and arguing  the case on merits for enhancement of  compensationand  thereafter  applying for condonation of  the  delay  inpayment  of  court fee and condonation thereof  or  to  seekdirection to pay the same would loom large and would  becomea practice or precedent.3. In certain cases, we have come across that this  practiceis  being  followed  by some of the Benches  in  Punjab  andHaryana  High Court and also in Delhi High Court.   In  somecases,  the High Courts are following the later judgment  ofthe three-Judge Bench.  Thereby an uncertainty in  principleis  being  created  that  whether  the  claimants  would  beentitled  to file appeals without paying the court  fee  andthen  to argue the matter on merits for the  enhancement  ofthe compensation and thereafter whether they be permitted topay  the deficit court fee on the enhanced market  value  oncondonation of delay and entitled to the benefits thereon.4.  In this view of this uncertainty, we feel  it  expedientthat  a request may be made to the Hon'ble Chief Justice  torefer this case before a Constitution Bench to lay down  thelaw  on  two  points, namely, (1) whether  an  appeal  underSection  96  of  CPC arising out  of  the  land  acquisitionappeals  filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition  Acteither  in  this  Court  or in  the  High  Courts  would  bemaintainable  without  paying the proper court  fee  on  theenhanced  market value claimed therein; and (2) whether  theHigh  Courts or this Court would be justified  in  condoningthe  delay  in  paying  the deficit  court  fee  and  givingdirection  to  pay the same after the appeals  are  allowed.The decision on these points would settle the principles  tobe followed uniformly by all the courts in the country.5.  Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place  this  casebefore  the  Hon'ble Chief Justice for  placing  the  matterbefore  the  Constitution Bench and  for  earlier  disposal,since number of matters are coming frequently for  admissionin this Court.6. Issue notice.7.  Learned  Attorney  General is requested  to  assist  theCourt.   The standing counsel for the States of  Punjab  andHaryana are also directed to take notice in this matter  andappear on behalf of the parties and assist the Court.                                     Court Master                  -------------------563