[B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.]

1. Considering the nature of controversy, we have heard parties at sufficient length and perused the Judgment dated 21st August, 2008 delivered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2231 of 2008 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by present appellant. Appeal is admitted and heard finally by consent.

2. Appellant has filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, before District Judge, Amravati, claiming compensation, alleging that amount offered to him for “acquisition” of about 41,190 sq.ft. + 13,450 sq.ft. Of land in 1990 is inadequate. The appellant demanded compensation of Rs.6,00,000-00 [rupees six lakhs only] with 12 per cent interest.

3. An objection was raised about payment of Court Fees, and present respondent no.1 filed application under Order-VII, Rule 11, read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, in that respect.

4. Learned Principal District Judge, Amravati, vide his Order dated 11th February, 2008 allowed that application, and directed applicant to pay Court Fees on his claim of Rs.6,00,000-00. That order formed subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 2231 of 2008, mentioned above.

5. Learned Adv. Mr. Khapre has contended that in view of the meaning given to the word “property” by Hon’ble Apex Court in the reported Judgments in cases of [a] Jilubhai Nanabhai Khachar etc., etc. Vs. State of Gujarat & another [AIR 1995 SC 142] [Para 42], and [b] Shri Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. & another Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 2003 SC 3436] [Para 14], the right of enjoyment and user of immovable property is also “a property”, and as the appellant has been deprived of it without paying adequate compensation, the claim as made under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is legally sustainable. He states that said claim is squarely covered by Clause (xv) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and appellant, therefore, is not required to pay ad valorem court fee. During arguments, he states that Court Fee paid by appellant is as per Sub-clause (f) of Clause 23 of Schedule-II of the Bombay Court Fees Act; but that also is excessive, and as per law, only court fee payable on application, i.e., Rs.0.65 N.P., ought to have been held sufficient. He has relied upon three judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court, to which we find it convenient to make reference lateron.

6. Learned Adv. Mr. Moharir, on the other hand, has contended that property has not been acquired at all and telegraph lines have been put in place in exercise of powers conferred upon respondent no.1 by invoking Clause (d) of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. He, therefore, states that as there is no acquisition and money is being claimed as compensation, the process of adjudication is involved and hence rightly, the learned District Court has demanded court fee under Clause 7 of Schedule I and Section 6 (i) of the Bombay Court Fees Act.

7. Learned Govt. Pleader Mr. N.W. Sambre for State Govt. has contended that the provisions of Telegraph Act nowhere contemplate acquisition, and as compensation is being claimed on account of acquisition, the ad valorem court fee as contemplated by Section 6 (i) is required to be paid. He states that for same reasons, the Judgments relied upon by the appellant are not relevant.

8. The provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 nowhere contemplate acquisition of property, i.e., divesting of title of the appellant. As recourse is to Section 16 (3) of the very same Act, it is obvious that the appellant is also availing his remedy within four corners of said Act. Thus, the act of respondent no.1 is in accordance with provisions of 1885 Act and, therefore, it is clear that title of the property in relation to which compensation is being claimed still vests with appellant.

9. It is, no doubt, true that the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at [i] AIR 1995 SC 142, and [ii] AIR 2003 SC 3436 [supra], w