Exemption under Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act does not apply when challenging an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; court fees are payable for such appeals.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The claimant in a land acquisition proceedings, is the revision petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the return of AOP.No.2017 in CFR.No.8429 of 2017, requiring the petitioner to pay Court fee under Schedule II Article 1(m) at the rate of 3% of the value, capped at a maximum of Rs.1 lakh.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.G.Sumitra, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

3. Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the landowners had lost their valuable property in acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act. The land acquisition officer had awarded compensation far below the commensurate market value prevailing on the relevant date and therefore, the petitioner had sought for enhancement before the District Collector. The District Collector has confirmed the order passed by the land acquisition officer, which necessitated the petitioner to file the Arbitration OP before the learned District Judge.

4. Mr.S.Subbaiah learned Senior Counsel would submit that, the claimant is entitled to exemption under Section 72 of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and further, the OP filed by the petitioner was only seeking enhancement of the amount awarded by the District Collector and it cannot be treated as an Application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . He would further contend that mere quoting of wrong provision that is, section 34 of the should not disentitle the petitioner from claiming the exemption under of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 which does not require any Court fee to be paid by the revision petitioner.

5. Mr. Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2004) 137 STC 389 and Diwan Brothers Vs. Central Bank of India, Bombay and others , reported in (1976) 3 SCC 800 .

6. Mr. Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel would therefore state that the petitioner is entitled to avail the exemption and he cannot be forced to pay Court fee, treating the application for enhancement of compensation as one under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .

7. Per contra, Mr. Su Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent would state that the property of the petitioner was acquired for the formation of a four-way lane of National Highway No.47 and an award, after considering the objections of the petitioner came to be passed on 16.09.2008.

8. The learned counsel would further state that the competent authority fixed the compensation at Rs.74.13 per square meter, for the total land measuring 7125.50 square meters. Not satisfied with the award, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and approached the District Collector, Erode and the District Collector, on enquiry, confirmed the award of the competent authority. It is therefore the contention of Mr.Su.Srinivasan, that the Arbitration OP was rightly filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, challenging the award of the Arbitrator/ District Collector in the present case.

9. Inviting my attention to section 3G of the National Highways Act 1956, Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac