Ad valorem Court fees is payable on appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the decisions in First Appeal No. 15 of 1984 and First Appeal No. 35 of 1988 do not lay down the correct law.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been placed before this Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice K. M. Agarwal (who is also a member of this Full Bench) and Mr. Justice S. K. Chawla, disagreeing with the view taken by earlier two Division Benches of this Court in First Appeal No. 15 of 1984 (Land Acquisition Officer, Seoni v. Laxminarayan) (AIR 1992 MP 140) and First Appeal No. 35 of 1988 (Smt. Ganabai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) with regard to the payment of Court fees on the Memo randum of appeal presented under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Cross-Objections in such appeals.

( 2 ) IN order to highlight the points in controversy and to answer to the reference, it is necessary to state the material facts in brief which are as follows : the State Government through its Land Acquisition Officer, has acquired 3 acres of land of Survey Number 477 belonging to the claimant/respondent situated in village Udaipura for which the Collector, Raisen made an award of compensation payable to the respondent. The claimant/respondent, being dissatisfied with the award, made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in brevity "l. A. Act") for referring the matter to the Court for enhancement of the compensation. The learned District Judge, Raisen, made an award enhancing the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre, to be paid to the respondent. The appellant, State of Madhya Pradesh, being dissatisfied by the enhanced award made by the Civil Court, has preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the L. A. Act and ad valorem Court fees has been paid on the memorandum of appeal on its valuation. The claimant/respondent has also preferred cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity "the Code") claiming further enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre. The respondent has valued the cross-objection at Rs. 33,000/- but has not paid ad valorem Court fees and has paid fixed Court fees as prescribed under Article 11 of Schedule 2 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (in brevity "the C. F, Act" ). A preliminary controversy surfaced before the referring Division Bench, whether fixed Court fees under Article 11 of Schedule 2 of the C. F. Act is payable on the memorandum of appeal filed under Section 54 of the L. A. Act and the Cross-Objections in such appeals or ad valorem Court fees is payable under Article 1-A of Schedule 1 of the C. F. Act. On the strength of two Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 15 of 1984 (Land Acquisition Officer, Seoni v. Laxminarain) decided on 7-8-1991 (and reported in 1991 (2) MPJR 203, as well as First Appeal No. 35 of 1988 (Smt. Ganabai v. State of M. P.) decided on 24-4-1991 it was canvassed on behalf of the claimant/respondent who was filed the cross-objection that only fixed Court fees under Article 11 of Schedule 2 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is payable on the memorandum of appeal as well as on the cross-objection.

( 3 ) LEARNED Judges of the referring Division Bench did not feel inclined to agree and subscribe the view taken by the earlier two Division Benches in the cases referred to above and, therefore, made a reference to a larger Bench to reconsider the decision rendered in the aforesaid two appeals. Both the learned Judges of the referring Bench, have given their separate reasons for disagreeing with the view taken by the earlier two Division Benches in the appeals referred to above. According to referring Bench, the two decisions rendered by the earlier two Division Benches of this Court in F. A. No. 15 of 1984 and F. A. No. 35 of 1988, do not lay down the correct law that fixed Court fees is payable on memorandum of appeal filed under Section 54 of the L. A. Act. In the opinion of Brother Agarwal, J. the award made by the Civil Court has all the attributes of a decree and not an order; conse