Back
1995 JLJ 724
(SUPREME COURT)
K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
Indore Development Authority v. Tarak Singh and others
C.A. No. 5645 of 1995; arising out of the order of M.P. High Court, passed on 27.10.1993; Decided on 2.5.1995.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 2 (2) and 2 (14) -- order awarding compensation under Land Acquisition Act by reference Court n is a decree as defined under S. 2 (2). [Para 6
(3) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S. 8, Sch. I Art. 1A and Sch. II Art. 11 -- appeal under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- appellant avoiding payment of higher compensation amount awarded by reference Court -- ad-valorem court-fees on amount sought to be avoided is payable.
It is true that the appellant is not the claimant. But when the appellant seeks to avoid the decree, which is made by the reference Court, it must be construed that the appellant is seeking to avoid the amount of higher compensation determined by the reference Court, as claimed by the land owners. Therefore, the appellant is required to pay the court-fee on the memorandum of appeal to the extent on which the appellant seeks to avoid the higher compensation awarded by the reference Court under the Central Act. When its legality is challenged by filing the appeal under S. 54, the difference of the amount for which appeal is filed, ad valorem court-fee under S. 8, is required to be paid. Article 11 of Schedule II has no application, since it is expressly covered by S. 8 of the Court-fees Act. Order of High Court affirmed. 1993 JLJ 280 (FB) approved. AIR 1987 SC 180 relied on. [Para 7
(4) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S. 54 -- appeal by authority for whom land acquired -- amount of compensation challenged as being higher -- advalorem court-fees on amount so challenged has to be paid. Order of High Court affirmed. 1993 JLJ 280 (FB) approved. AIR 1987 SC 180 relied on. [Para 7
¼1½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 26 ¼2½ rFkk 18 && vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djus okyk funsZ‘k U;k;ky; && flfoy U;k;ky; && mlds }kjk ikfjr vf/kfu.kZ; && /kkjk 26 ¼2½ ds v/khu ;Fkk vuq/;kr fMØh gSA , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 180 voyafcrA 1993 ts ,y ts 280 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ vuqeksfnrA ¿ iSjk 6
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 2 ¼2½ rFkk 2 ¼14½ && funsZ‘k U;k;ky; }kjk Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e ds v/khu izfrdj vf/kfu.khZr djus okyk vkns‘k && /kkjk 2 ¼2½ ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fMØh gSA ¿ iSjk 6
¼3½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 8] vuqlwph 1 vuqPNsn 1d rFkk vuqlwph 2 vuqPNsn 11 && Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 dh /kkjk 54 ds v/khu vihy && funsZ‘k U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kfu.khZr izfrdj dh mPprj jde ds lank; ls vihykFkhZ }kjk cpus dk iz;kl && cph tkuk bZfIlr jde ij ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl lans; gSA
;g lR; gS fd vihykFkhZ nkosnkj ugha gSA fdarq tc vihykFkhZ fMØh ls cpus dh bZIlk djrk gS] tksfd funsZ‘k U;k;ky; }kjk dh xbZ gS] rc ;g vFkZ yxkuk gh pkfg, fd vihykFkhZ] Hkw&Lokfeksa }kjk nkok dh xbZ] funsZ‘k u;k;ky; }kjk fuf‘pr dh xbZ mPprj izfrdj dh jde ls cpus dh bZIlk djrk gSA vr%] vihykFkhZ ds fy, vko‘;d gS fd og vihy ds Kkiu ij U;k;ky; Qhl ml ifj.kke rd lank; djs ftl ij vihykFkhZ funsZ‘k U;k;ky; }kjk dsanzh; vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vf/kfu.khZ; mPprj izfrdj ls cpus dh bZIlk djrk gSA tc mldh oS/krk /kkjk 54 ds v/khu vihy Qkby dj ds vk{ksfir dh xbZ gS] rc ml jde ds varj ij ftl ds fy, vihy Qkby dh xbZ gS] /kkjk 8 ds v/khu ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; Qhl lanÙk dh tkuk gksrh gSA vuqlwph 2 dk vuqPNsn 11 ykxw ugha gksrk D;ksafd] og foof{kr rkSj ij U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ds varxZr vkrk gSA mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k vfHkiq"VA 1993 ts ,y ts 280 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ vuqeksfnrA , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 180 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 7
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant acquired the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Central Act') and on reference under S. 18, the District Judge, Indore enhanced the compensation from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 88,000/- per hectare. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed the memorandum of appeal in the High Court and paid the fixed Court fee. By order dated 27.10.1993, the appellant was called upon to pay the ad valorem Court fee. Calling in question the order, the appellant filed these appeals by special leave.
3. The High Court has relied upon its Full Bench decision reported in State of M.P. v. Goverdhandas 1993 Jab LJ 280. 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 Court Fees Act, 1870 (for short, 'the Act') has no application to the facts in this case. Article 11 of Schedule II of the Act is applicable and that, therefore, they are required to pay only the fixed Court fee prescribed thereunder. He also seeks to canvass the correctness of the judgment of the Full Bench in that behalf.
4. Having considered the respective contentions, we are of the view that the Full Bench of the High Court of M.P. has laid down the law correctly. Section 3 (d) of the Central Act defines the 'Court' to mean a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Section 18 of the Central Act gives right to the claimant or the owner of the land for seeking reference. The Collector is enjoined to make a reference for the determination of the objection raised by the claimant regarding either the measurement of the land or the amount of compensation. Thereafter, the Collector is obligated to make the statement to the Court in the manner prescribed under S. 19. On receipt thereof, under S. 20, the Court is to cause a notice served as mentioned therein. Under S. 22, the Court conducts the proceedings as a Civil Court. Sub-section (2) of S. 2, of the C.P.C. defines the decree and S. 2 (14), of the Code defines 'order'.
5. This Court in C.G. Ghanshamdas v. Collector of Madras, AIR 1987 SC 180, considering the scope of the appeal under S. 11, of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (30 of 1952) and the liability of the State to pay the Court fee under S. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act, which is pari materia with S. 54 of the Act, considered the controversy and held that the award of the arbitrator is a formal expression of a decision made by a competent authority. Further, it is a decision binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made. Therefore, the question whether the order in question is executable or not appears to be irrelevant for the purpose of determining the point on the payment of Court fee. On consideration of S. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act and Ss. 2 (2) and 2(14) of the C.P.C. this Court held that the order awarding compensation under the Act, is an order under S. 2 (14). When it is sought to be assailed by filing appeal under S. 51, of Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act, the appellant is definitely seeking to avoid the compensation awarded under the Act. Therefore, that is an order made by the statutory authority. Accordingly, the appellants were required to pay ad valorem Court fee on the value of the memorandum of appeal.
6. The case on hand stands on a higher footings than the one dealt with in Ghanshyamdas's case (AIR 1987 SC 180). Here, the Subordinate Judge, who deals with the reference, is a civil Court under the Central Act to determine compensation. By operation of S.26 (2), his award is a decree within the meaning of S. 2 (2), of C.P.C. It is a formal expression of an adjudication on the compensation awardable or measurement of the land acquired under the Central Act. It is a final adjudication also, unless it can be avoided in any other forum known to law; and it could be avoided only by filing appeal as prescribed in S. 54 of the Central.
7. In this context, it
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
