Judgment

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE appellant acquired the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, central Act) and on reference under S. 18, the District Judge, Indore enhanced the compensation from Rs. 25,000. 00 to Rs. 88,000. 00 per hectare. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed the memorandum of appeal in the High Court and paid the fixed Court fee. By order dated 27-10-1993, the appellant was called upon to pay the ad valorem Court fee. Calling in question the order, the appellant filed these appeals by special leave.

( 3 ) THE High Court has relied upon its Full Bench decision reported in State of M. P. v. Goverdhandas 1993 Jab LJ 280 : (AIR 1993 Mdh Pra. 70 ). The Principal contention of Shri V. R. Reddy, the learned Additional Solicitor General, is that the appellant is not a claimant. Section 8 of the M. P. Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, the Act) has no application to the facts in this case. Article 11 of Schedule II of the Act is applicable and that, therefore, they are required to pay only the fixed Court fee prescribed thereunder. He also seeks to canvass the correctness of the judgment of the Full Bench in that behalf.

( 4 ) HAVING considered the respective contentions, we are of the view that the Full Bench of the High Court of M. P. has laid down the law correctly. Section 3 (d) of the Central Act defines the court to mean a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Section 18 of the Central Act gives right to the claimant or the owner of the land for seeking reference. The Collector is enjoined to make a reference for the determination of the objection raised by the claimant regarding either the measurement of the land or the amount of compensation. Thereafter, the Collector is obligated to make the statement to the Court in the manner prescribed under S. 19. On receipt thereof, under S. 20, the Court is to cause a notice served as mentioned therein. Under S. 22, the Court conducts the proceedings as a Civil Court. Sub-section (2) of S. 2, of the C. P. C. defines the decree and S. 2 (14), of the Act defines order.

( 5 ) THIS Court in C. G. Ghanshamdas v. Collector of Madras. AIR 1987 SC 180, considering the scope of the appeal under S. 11, of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (30 of 1952) and the liability of the State to pay the Court fee under S. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act, which is pari materia with 58 of the Act, considered the controversy and held that the award of the arbitrator is a formal expression of a decision made by a competent authority. Further, it is a decision binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made. Therefore, the question whether the order in question is executable or not appears to be irrelevant for the purpose of determining the point on the payment of Court fee. On consideration of S. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act and Ss. 2 (2) and 2 (14) of the C. P. C. this Court held that the order awarding compensation under the Act, is an order under S. 2 (14 ). When it is sought to be assailed by filing appeal under S. 51, of Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act, the appellant is definitely seeking to avoid the compensation awarded under the Act. Therefore, that is and order made by statutory authority. Accordingly, the appellants were required to pay ad velorem Court fee on the value of the memorandum of appeal.

( 6 ) THE case on hand stands on a higher footings than the one dealt with in Ghanshyamdass case (AIR 1987 SC 180 ). Here, the Subordinate Judge, who deals with the reference, is a civil Court under the Central Act to determine compensation. By operation of S. 26 (2) his award is a decree within the meaning of S. 2 (2), of C. P. C. It is a formal expression of an adjudication on the compensation awardable or measurement of the land acquired under the Central Act. It is a final adjudication also, unless it can be avoided in any other forum known to law, and it could be avoided only by filing appeal as prescri