Court-fees on appeals to be governed by the old or new Court fees Act.

The question referred for decision in the two appeals is whether the Court-fee paid on them is correct.

The Court-fee that was paid on the appeals was in accordance with the provisions of the Court-fees Act of 1870 which for the sake of brevity I shall hereafter refer to as the Old Court-fees Act. It is contended on behalf of the State that the Court-fee has got to be calculated on the basis of the Court-fees Act (XIV of 1955) which came into force on 19th May, 1955. I shall refer to that Act as the New Court-fees Act. The appeals are filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming a higher compensation for certain lands acquired in Tondiarpet under the Town Planning Act. In respect of the lands so acquired the Land Acquisition Officer published a notification on 14th May, 1955, under section 9. Claims were filed by the appellants on 7th June, 1955, stating that they were entitled to a particular amount of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 14th June, 1955. The claimants were however dissatisfied with the award and at their instance a reference was made under the provisions of section 18 of the Act on 21st July, 1955. The principal City Civil Judge who heard the reference increased the compensation payable to the appellants. The latter, however, were dissatisfied with what they got and they have filed the above appeals claiming that they are entitled to higher amount of compensation. The claims in the appeals are respectively Rs. 62,189 and Rs. 34,929-8-0. As I stated already the appellants have paid Court-fee under Schedule I, Article 1 of the Old Court-fees Act. They stated that they are entitled to do so by reason of the provisions of section 87 (2) of the New Court-fees Act. That states,

“ All suits and proceedings instituted before the commencement of this Act and all proceedings by way of appeal, revision or otherwise arising therefrom whether instituted before or after such commencement shall, notwithstanding the repeal of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (Central Act VII of 1870) and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act VII of 1887) be governed by the provisions of the said Acts and the rules made thereunder” .

Mr. Ramaswami, appearing for the Government Pleader contended that section 87 (2) of the New Act will not apply as there was no proceedings in existence prior to 21st July, 1955, when a reference under section 18 was made to the lower Court. According to the learned counsel the ascertainment of compensation by the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer under sections 9 and 11 are administrative in character and not being judicial could not be said to be proceedings within the meaning of the section as the Officer concerned could not be said to be acting as a Court. In support of that contention the learned counsel referred to the decisions in Ezra v. Secretary of State for India1, Abdul Sattar Sahib v. Special Deputy Collector, Vizagapatam2, and Annamalai Chettiar and others v. State of Madras and others3.

In the present case the reference to the lower Court was made only subsequent to the coming into force of the New Act. It is therefore to be ascertained whether the proceedings could be deemed to be pending before the coming into force of the New Court-fees Act in relation to the award.

The term ‘proceedings’ has been defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as ‘doings, a legal action or process, any act done by the authority of a Court of law.

In re Ramanathan Chettiar1was a case where a question arose as to the proper Court-fee payable on the memorandum of a Civil Revision Petition against an order direct-ting a decree-holder to refund a sum of money received by him as ratable distribution. Venkataramana Rao, J., had to consider the meaning of the term ‘proceeding’ in Schedule II, Article 1 (b) (i) of the Old Court-fees Act. The learned Judge held that the word ‘proceeding’ in its narrow sense could be a step in any action or in an independent proceeding analogous t