Back
1978 Supreme(Ker) 157
Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR,K.BHASKARAN,T.CHANDRASEKHARA MENON
BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIYAR - Appellant
Versus
MADHAVAN - Respondent
Case No : L. A. A. No. 271, 273, 274, 343 etc. of 1977
Decided On : 08/16/1978
Advocates Appeared :
C. K, Sivasankara Panicker, T. S. Venkiteswara Iyer, P. V. Madhavan Nambiyar & T. Karunakaran Nambiyar For Appellants T. P. Kelu Nambiyar & Advocate General (M. M. Abdul Khader) For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of S.51 of the C. F. Act in determining the court fee payable on appeals relating to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:
Court Fee - Land Acquisition - S.51 of C. F. Act - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The cases were referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of the court to re-examine the correctness of a previous decision regarding the court fee payable on appeals concerning apportionment of compensation under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. The appeals were filed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry in a batch of connected references made under S.32 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were liable to pay court fee on an ad valorem basis on the compensation amount claimed in the appeals, as per S.51 of the C. F. Act. The court held that the previous decision on this aspect did not lay down the correct law.
Issues: The main issue was the correct interpretation of S.51 of the C. F. Act and the court fee payable on appeals relating to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that S.51 of the C. F. Act applies to appeals against orders relating to compensation under any Act for the acquisition of property for public purposes, and the fee should be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.
Final Decision: The court ordered the appellants to pay the additional court fee within six weeks, and the appeals would be heard and disposed of after the said period.
1. These cases have come up before the Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of this court (Balakrishna Eradi & Balagangadharan Nair JJ.) wherein the correctness of the decision of a previous Division Bench ruling of this Court in Sabapathy Pillai v Special Tahsildar (1970 KLT.1015) was doubted.
2. The appeals have been filed by different claimants against the decision of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry in a batch of connected reference made to that court under S.32 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') concerning apportionment of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of certain large extents of land acquired for the purpose of Aralam Seed Farm. At the hearing of the appeals, objection was taken on behalf of the State by the learned Advocate General as also by some of the counsel appearing for the party respondents regarding the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeals. According to them, the court-fee was insufficient and the appeals are liable to be rejected on the ground of non-payment of proper court fee.
3.In all these cases, only a court-fee of Rs. 10/- had been paid on each Memorandum of Appeal. This was on the basis that the subject matter of the appeals is governed by Art.3(iiii)A(1) of Schedule II of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'C. F. Act'). This article would apply when the matter is not governed by any of the other specific provisions in the C. F. Act. In the case of Sabapathy Pillai v. Special Tahsildar (1970 KLT.1015) there were observations which lend support to the contention of the appellants.
4. The learned judges who referred the cases to the Full Bench, as stated earlier, expressed grave doubts about the correctness of the decision and they thought the matter requires re-examination by a Full Bench. It was pointed out in the reference order that S.51 of the C. F. Act which seems to have a direct bearing on the question had not been adverted to by the Division Bench. Under that section the fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to the compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of property for public purposes shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. The Division Bench was of the view that the word "awarded" occurring in S.51 has been used in a wide and generic sense as meaning "ordered to be paid." This meaning, the learned judges observed, is also clearly indicated by S.60 of the Act under which provision, the appeals bad been filed. That section treats even a decision rendered by the court on a reference under S.32 as an award and provides that an appeal shall lie against such decision as if the award is a decree passed by a Civil Court. The Reference Order also refers to the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in Ghouse Saheb v. Sharifa Bi (AIR. 1977 Karnataka 181) where there has been a detailed review of the prior decisions rendered on the subject by various High Courts. The Karnatka High Court took the view that in view of S.48 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, which corresponds to S 51 of the C.F. Act, the appellant in an appeal, filed against a decision of a Subordinate Judge on a reference under S.31 of the Act, should pay ad valorem Court fee on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. The learned judges in the Reference Order observed that the Karnataka view prima facie appeared to them to lay down the correct position.
5. Before going into the various decisions referred to by counsel on both sides, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions in the Act as well as of the C.F. Act for considering the question that has been referred to this Bench. S.11 of the Act provides that on due enquiry as provided in the earlier part of the Section, the Collector shall make an awar
