Mathur, C.J. -- 1. This is a reference made by the Division Bench that in an appeal under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, the court-fee should be paid ad valorem or fixed as required under Article 11 of Schedule-II. The Division Bench of this Court has made reference whether the decision given by the Division Bench in Misc. Appeal No. 165 of 1985 (Mukund Das Maheshwari & another v. Union of India), decided on 3.9.1985, lays down the correct law or not.

The Division Bench has observed that the decision in the case of Mukund Das Maheshwari (supra) runs counter to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court given in the case of C.G. Ghanshamdas & others v. Collector of Madras, AIR 1987 SC 180, and a Single Bench decision of this Court in case of Union of India through the Defence State Officer, M.P. Circle, Jabalpur Cantt. v. University of Saugor & others, 1986 JLJ 543 = 1986 MPLJ 678 and also in Indore Development Authority v. Tarak Singh and others, 1995 JLJ 724 = AIR 1995 SC 1828, wherein the Hon. Supreme Court has approved the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Goverdhandas, 1993 JLJ 280= AIR 1993 MP 70.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are that an appeal was preferred under section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) and in that an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that on the memorandum of appeal against order determining the compensation payable in respect of the property of the respondent requisitioned, the ad valorem court-fee has not been paid; therefore, the appeal preferred by the Government of India is liable to be dismissed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. It may be relevant to mention here that there is a direct decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of C.G. Ghanshamdas (supra) wherein this question was answered. That case arse under the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, for appeals arising under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and in that connection, their Lordships observed :-

"The court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal filed under section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Requisition Act) against the order determining compensation payable in respect of the property requisitioned has to be computed in accordance with section 51 of the T.N. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955."

Section 51 and section 8 of the Court-fees & Suits Valuation Act as adopted by the State of M.P. with amendment in its application to the State of M.P. is pari materia. A similar question also came up before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Seth Gowardhandas, 1993 JLJ 280 = AIR 1993 MP 70 and it was held:

"Court-fees Act (7 of 1870), Sch. 1, Art. 1 A, Sch. 2, Art. 11 -- Award of civil Court made in land acquisition cases -- Is a 'decree' in view of amended provisions of section 26 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Memorandum of Appeal (including cross-objection) against it -- ad valorem court-fee under Art. 1A of Sch. 1 and not fixed court-fee under Art.11 of Sch. 2 would be payable."

Their Lordships relied on the decision given by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CG. Ghanshamdas (supra). This judgment was affirmed by. their Lordships of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Tarak Singh, 1995 JLJ 724 = AIR] 995 SC 1828, paras 3 & 4 and it was observed in para 3 of the judgment :

"The High Court has relied upon its Full Bench decision reported in State of M.P. v. Gevardhandas, 1993 JLJ 280 = AIR 1993 MP 70. The principal contention of Shri V.R. Reddy, the learned Additional Solicitor General, is that the appellant is not a claimant. Section 8 of the M.P. Court fees Act, 1870 (for short, 'the Act') has no application to the facts in this case. Ar