The amount of court fee payable on an appeal against an award of an arbitrator under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953, is governed by Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and not by Article 1 of Schedule I.

Kapur, J.

1. The question for determination in these proceedings at this stage is the amount of court-fee which is to be paid by the appellant.

2. The petitioner was the owner of a large area of land out of which 1,699 bighas and 1 biswa in village Ralli was requistioned by the State of the Punjab on the 15th February 1951 and it was acquired on the 8th February 1S52. The compensation allowed to him by the Collector was Rs. 1,97,402/14/4 but the petitioner did not accept his to be adequate, therefore Mr. J. S. Bedl, District Judge, Ambala, was appointed as an arbitrator under the Act. He enhanced the amount by Rs. 53,687/11/-. Against this award the petitioner brought an appeal under Section 11 of Act XI of 1953 and his prayeris for enhancement of the amount of compensation by Rs. 2,68,274/5/-. He has stamped his memorandum of appeal with Rs. 4/- under Schedule II Article 11 of the Courtfees Act. The State has filed cross-objections, but they have paid court-fee ad valorem, and by an order dated the 1st December 1954 I referred the question of courts fee to a Division Bench which has been heard by us.

3. Under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, XI of 1953, assessment of compensation is provided for in section 8 and payment in section 9 of the Act. Appeals are provided in Section 11; The relevant portion of this section is-

"11. Any person aggrieved by an award of the arbitrator made under Section 8 May, within thirty days from the date of such award, prefer an appeal to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the requisitioned or acquired property is situate."

Section 22 gives power to make rules, but the Rules which are contained in Part V of 1954 Lah LT 16 (A) have no rules about appeals under Section 11.

4 In order to determine the amount of court-fee reference has to be made to the various sections of the Court-fees Act section 4 deals with fees on documents filed in High Courts and Section 8 with fees on documents filed in Mufassal Courts, Section 7 of the Act provides for computation of fees payable in certain cases. Its relevant portion runs as under:

"7. The amount of fee payable under this Act In the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:......"

Section 8 of this Act deals with fees on memorandum of appeal against order relating to compensation. It provides-

"8. 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 force for the acquisition of land for public purposes shall be computed according to the differences between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant."

Section 4 is in Chapter 2 which deals with fees in High Courts and Chapter 3 with fees in other Courts and in public offices.

5 As to what is the amount of court-fee to be charged, in various cases is given in Schedules I and II of the Act. Schedule I deals with ad valorem court-fee and Schedule II with fixed fees. Article 1 o[ Schedule I is a residuary Article and runs as under:

"I. Plaint, written statement pleading a set off or counter claim or memorandum of appeal (not otherwise provided for in the Act) or of cross-objection presented to any Civil of Revenue Court except those mentioned in Section 3".

Other Articles of Schedule I are not necessary for the purpose of this case. In Schedule II the only Article Which is necessary to be considered is Article 11 which provides.

"11. Memorandum (a) to any civil Court One of appeal when the other than a High Rupee appeal is not *** Court, or to any Re- Eight from a decree or venue Court or Exe- annas, an order having cutive Officer other the force of a de- than the High Court cree, and i s pre- or Chief Controlling sented Revenue or Executive Authority;

(b) to a High Court. Pour or Chief Commis- Rupees, sioner, or other Chief Controlling Executive or Reve nue Authority."

6. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that this cas