Point of Law : There is no provision under 2013 Act corresponding to Section 53 of 1894 Act by which provisions of Civil Procedure Code were made applicable to proceedings in nature of Land Reference Application.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. Mehare, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, heard finally.

2. The reference applications filed by the petitioners under Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as 2013 Act') against the award passed by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer (hereafter referred to as 'L.A.O.') for forwarding it to the Authority under 2013 Act, were rejected by the L.A.O. by communication dated 19.08.2019. The L.A.O. has given the reason that by notice dated 11.02.2019, the petitioners were called upon to pay the court fees on reference applications, but they had failed. Hence, their reference applications have been dismissed.

3. To appreciate the lis amongst the parties, it will be appropriate to briefly refer to the relevant facts for consideration as follows :

(a) By these petitions, the petitioners have impugned the communications mentioned above on the ground that as per Section 96 of 2013 Act, the court fees on the reference application to be forwarded by the Collector to the Authority under section 64 is exempted.

(b) In 2013 Act, the expression “Court” as was in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been deleted. Section 63 of the 2013 Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

(c) Under the new 2013 Act, the reference applications are be forwarded by the Collector/L.A.O. to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority ('the Authority' for short) under section 64 of the 2013 Act. It is not a court. Hence, provisions of Maharashtra Court Fees Act are not applicable to the present cases.

(d) Since the land acquisition Act has been re-enacted the court fees chargeable on reference as provided in Schedule-I, Article 15 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act would not apply to the reference applications under 2013 Act.

4. This Court, by it's order dated 20.08.2021, appointed learned advocate Mr. S.V. Adwant as an Amicus Curiae. He has submitted his short notes for consideration.

5. The learned advocates for the petitioners have submitted various case law in their support. They have the common arguments that, the court fee is exempted under section 96 of the 2013 Act. The Competent Authority Constituted/appointed under the said Act is not a Court. Hence, the provisions of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act would not apply to the reference under section 64 of the 2013.

6. The learned A.G.P. Mr. Siddharth B. Yawalkar supporting the impugned communications argued that, the petitioners have wrongly interpreted section 96 of the 2013 Act. By that section, the court fees to be paid on the reference application is not exempted. It is a proceeding before the Authority. It has the powers of Civil Court. The proceeding before the Authority is as good as Civil suit. The parties have right to lead the evidence and prove the claims. Therefore, Maharashtra Court Fees Act is squarely applicable to the references made under section 64 of the 2013 Act. He has submitted his written points for consideration.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Adwant, submits that the designated Authority established under Section 51 of the 2013 Act is neither the Court nor a Tribunal under the General Clauses Act. The term “Court’ must be read in the context in which it is used in the statute. In the instant case, the expression “Court” is to be read as comprehending the Courts of Civil Jurisdiction. Any Authority may have all the trappings of a Civil Court, yet, it continues to be an Authority and does not partake the character of a Civil Court. However, the term, “Authority” defined under the Act of 2013, has to be travel within the radius set out by the Act and not beyond it.

8. He further points out that Section 63 of the 2013 Act, bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any dispute relating to the Land Acquisition, which the Collector or the Competent Authority is empowered to