M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (shortly the Act) challenging the judgment and award passed by Subordinate Judge-II, Daltonganj, Palamau as Land Acquisition Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 10/96 whereby he has dismissed the Reference case under Section 18 of the Act and held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable.

2. It appears that the Reference Case before the Land Acquisition Judge was valued by the appellant at Rs. 26 lacs whereas the instant appeal has been valued at Rs. 25,78,909=95 paise. The office calculated the court fee amount on the basis of the valuation of the appeal put by the appellant. The matter was then placed before the Registrar General before whom the appellant submitted that court fee amount should not be assessed in terms of Article 1 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, rather, it should be governed by Article 9 of Schedule II as amended by Bihar Amendment Act. The Registrar General, disagreeing with the submission of the appellant, directed for payment of ad valorem court fee on the amount which is the value of the appeal. When the court fee amount was not paid, the appeal has been placed before this Bench for hearing in the matter of payment of court fee.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the award passed under the Act is neither a decree nor has the force of decree and, therefore, ad valorem court fee is not payable. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the matter of payment of court fee, it shall be governed by Article 9 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1995.

4. The State of Bihar by various ordinances and Act made necessary amendment in Schedules 1 and II of the Court Fees Act. Recently Schedules I and II of the Act have been substituted by the Court Fees (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1995 for its application to the State of Bihar including the State of Jharkhand. After amendment Act, 1995, Article 9 of Schedule II clearly provides court-fee payable for memorandum of appeal or cross-objection against a decree or order which do not have the force of a decree. The Court-fee payable in such appeal or cross- objection would be in accordance with the rules prescribed in the third column of this Article. The term "decree" has not been defined in the Court Fees Act, but Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines the term "decree".

5. Now the question that falls for consideration is as to whether an order passed by the Land Acquisition Judge on the reference under Section 18 of the Act has or has not live force of a decree. Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under:

26. Form of awards. - (1) Every award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of Sub-section (12) of Section 23, and also the amount (if any) respectively awarded under each of other clauses of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of warding each of the said amounts.

2. Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such ward, a judgment within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (2) and Section 2, Clause (9), respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

6. Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act makes it clear that every such order or award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge shall be deemed to be a decree. In my considered opinion, therefore, Article 9 of Schedule 11 will not apply.

7. Section 8 of the Court Fees Act is worth to be noticed while considering Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. Section 8 of the Court Fees Act reads as under:

8. Fee on memorandum of appeal against order relating to compensation. - The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act, for the time being in forc