An award passed by the Civil Judge under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 is deemed to be a decree and ad valorem court fee is payable on appeals filed against such awards.

1. :- In these appeals office has raised an objection that the appellants have not paid the requisite court fee as per Section 46 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, (here in after referred to as 'the Act').

2. These appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 against the awards passed by the Civil Judge, Dungarpur on references having been made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. In the awards given by the learned Civil Judge, the amount has been considerably enhanced. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded comparatively a very small sum.

3. Dissatisfied with the awards given by the learned Civil Judge, these appeals have been preferred.

4. The appellants have paid fixed court fee of Rs. j10/-, whereas the office objection is that ad valorem court fee should have been paid on the memos of appeal. So in these appeals a question arises, what amount of court fee is payable?

5. On behalf of the appellants it is urged by Mr. M.R. Singhvi that the court fee is payable in these appeals under Schedule II, Article 3, Clause (iii)(1)(b) of the Act as the appeals are against orders and not against decrees. The proceedings have been initiated under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act and the claims of the claimants were adjudged on the references having been made by the Land Acquisition Officer. So the proceedings are not in the nature of suit. The proceedings ultimately culminated into awards and not into decrees. So the decision given by the Civil Judge on the references can only be termed as orders and not decrees and so ad valorem court fee is not payable under Schedule I, Article 1 of the Act.. He submitted that so far as Section 46 of the Act is concerned that would not be attracted as no amount of compensation is claimed by the appellants. Under Section 46 of the Act, court fee is to be computed on memo of appeal on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. So in terms, Section 46 will not apply and as there is no specific provision dealing with appeals arising under the Land Acquisition Act or relating to compensation where reduction of compensation is claimed in appeal, so Schedule II, Article 3 alone would be attracted under which only fixed court fee is payable. In the alternative he also submitted that Section 47 of the Act deals with the appeals. The present appeals may be considered to be appeals Under Section 47 of the Act, so the same fee would be payable Under Section 47, which would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal. So on that basis Mr. Singhvi submitted that fixed court fee only is payable. Mr. Singhvi submitted that with regard to the nature of the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Diwan Brothers v. Central Bank of India, Bombay and Ors. AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1503 He urged that was a case under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 and Section 14 of that Act provided for rejection of the claim or allowing of the claim and the Tribunal is required to pass a decree as it thinks fit. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court despite the use of the expression 'decree' by the Legislature considered that the expression 'decree' used in Section 14 does not possess the same sense in which the word 'decree' is used under the Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. Having regard to the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 and having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, their Lordships held that court fee is not leviable considering the decision of the Tribunal as a decree, as the word 'decree' is not used under that Act in the same sense as it used in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the word 'decree' has been used in Act in the sense of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Singhvi pointed o