Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
R.J. Kochar, J.
Kestorabai w/o Bhagwan Chaudhari others ..... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Civil Revision Application No. 1142 of 1997 in First Appeal ST. No. 19880 of 97, decided
on 24-11-1998.
Advocates appeared :
R.M. Deshmukh, for the petitioners.
R.S. Deshmukh, A.G.P., for State.
Sections 7(1) and 47, and Notification, dated 1st October, 1994 and Land Acquisition Act, Section 54-Death of person making reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act during the proceedings-His widow, son and 4 daughters brought on record-Award as given challenged in appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act-Female appellants exempted from payment of court-fees in view of the notification, dated 1.10.1994-Male appellant was liable to pay proportionate court-fees as regards his claim. 1996 (1) Mh LJ 74 and 1997 (2) Mh LJ 264. Ref.-There is no manner of doubt that the subject matter of the present appeal relates to the property of the petitioners and, therefore, they are entitled to be exempted from payment of court-fees in accordance with the aforesaid notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra. The Taxing Officer was not right in observing that the notification applied only at the stage of filing reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and not at the stage of filing of proceedings in the Court. The Taxing Officer has totally misread the notification which is very liberally worded. There is absolutely no restriction reflected in the said notification. Since, the State wanted to promote the welfare of women in the State, the language of the notification is liberally worded. The benefit is given to "women litigants" in cases relating to maintenance, property disputes, violence and divorce. So, all the women litigants are entitled to get the benefit of exemption at any stage of the litigation and in any court of law. In the last para of the notification, the intendment of the State Government is made crystal clear that "Government of Maharashtra hereby remits the fees payable by the women litigants" on any 9f the plaints, applications, petitions, memorandum of appeals or any other documents specified in the first and second schedules of the said Act to be filed in any civil, family or criminal Courts in respect of the cases relating to maintenance, property disputes, violence and divorce. The present is the first appeal which is filed by the five women petitioners. Therefore, the women litigants aforesaid are entitled to the exemption from the payment of court-fees on their memorandum of appeal. The State Government never intended that the welfare of the women would be achieved only by restricting the exemption up to a particular stage of litigation and, not thereafter. To construe in the said manner, would be to do violence to the language used in the aforesaid notification. It would further amount to bring about the divorce from the intention of the State Government and the clear language used in the notification.
Sections 7(1) and 56 and Notification dated 1.10.1994 issued under Section 46-Land Acquisition Act, Sections 18 and 54-Exemption from payment of Court Fees in view of Notification dated 1.10.1994Award under Land Acquisition Act Appeal against-Person making reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act died during proceedings-His widow, son and daughters substituted-Question arose whether female appellants in place of deceased person can be exempted from payment of Court Fees in view of Notification dated 1.10.1994-Held, yes and only male appellant liable to pay Court Fees to the extent of his proportionate claim only.
2.Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
3.A cry for gender justice is the subject matter of this civil revision application, which is filed by five female applicants against the State of Maharashtra. The said civil revision application is filed in the First Appeal Stamp No. 19880/97 wherein the Taxing Officer of this Court by his order dated 21-11-1997 refused to register the said first appeal as he found that no Court fees stamp was paid by the said applicants who are the petitioners in the civil revision application. One of the petitioners however, is a male member of the family i.e. the petitioner No. 2. Petitioners have impugned in the present C.R.A. the order passed by the Taxing Officer on 21-11-1997 directing the petitioners to pay the Court fees of Rs. 5,200/- on the claim of Rs. 74,876/-. The petitioners who are the female petitioners, are aggrieved by the said order of the Taxing Officer and, therefore, they have challenged the said order by way of the present civil revision application.
4.To appreciate the legal contentions of the parties, it is necessary to enumerate briefly the admitted factual matrix of the case. The Land Acquisition Officer had acquired the agricultural land of one Bhagwan Chaudhari (Gat No. 43 - 5 Hectare and 8 Areas). The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at Rs. 9,000/- per Hectare. The deceased owner of the land Bhagwan Chaudhari was aggrieved by and was not satisfied with the said award. Therefore, the dispute was referred to the C.J.S.D., Amalner who decided the reference by his judgment and order dated 22-4-1997. During the pendency of the reference, the original owner of the acquired land Bhagwan Chaudhari had expired and, therefore, the present petitioners were brought on record in the reference before the Court as his legal heirs and representatives. Since the present petitioners were not satisfied with the judgment and order of the Court, they have filed first appeal before this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At this stage, the Taxing Officer steps in and demands from the petitioners the requisite Court stamp fees under the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 for the first appeal. Since the petitioners - ladies opposed to pay any Court fees stamp on the ground that they are exempted from the payment of such Court fees, they called upon the Taxing Officer to decide the question and pass an appropriate order which he did on 21-11-1997. The Taxing Officer did not agree with the contentions of the petitioners that they were not required to pay Court fees stamps as they were exempted. According to him, they have to pay such Court fees for filing of the first appeal as per the provisions of section 7(1) of the Bombay Court Fees Act. In the opinion of the Taxing Officer, the petitioners were exempted from paying any Court fees for reference before the Civil Court for determination of compensation under section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. He however, did not accept their contention that they were exempted from payment of Court fees on the first appeal in the High Court.
5.The learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in (Deepa Shashikant Godambe v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 551. The learned Judge referred to the relevant notification dated October 1, 1994 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, which was meant to promote welfare of the women and held as under:-
"that by Notification dated 1-10-1994 the Government of Maharashtra has remitted the fees payable by women litigants on any of the plaints, applications, petitions, memorandum of appeals or any other documents specified in the First and Second Schedules to the Bombay Court Fees Act, to be filed in any Civil, Family or Criminal Courts in respect of cases relating to the afores
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
