Back
1993 JLJ 280
(FULL BENCH)
S.K. Jha, CJ., Faizan Uddin and K.M. Agarwal, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Seth Goverdhandas
First Appeal No. 100 of 1983; Decided on 17.10.1992.
(2) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- Sch.2, Art.11 -- term. "decree" used under -- is referable to "decree" as defined under S.2(2) CPC. AIR 1976 SC 1503 followed. [Para 5 .
(3) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss.3( d) and 18 – word ‘‘Court" as used in S.18 -- is a ‘Court‘ as defined in S.3(d) which is a Court of reference -- it is a Court for all intent and purposes and not a Tribunal. [Para 7
(4) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss.53 and 18 -- Civil P.C,.1908 -- S.141 -- proceedings before the reference Court under the Act --are proceedings before the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction -- nature of proceedings is as contemplated under S.141 of the Code. 1963 ILR 442 (Punjab) and AIR 1977 Kar. 9 relied on. [Para 8
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.141 -- word "suit" used under –is comprehensive Sense to include appeal also which is nothing but a continuation of suit in higher Court. [Para 8
(6) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 --S.18 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.26, O.2 R.2, O.4 R 2, O. 6 and O.7-- application of reference made by claimant under S. 18 of the Act -- bears the nature of plaint of a civil suit.
Plaint is a memorial tendered to a Court in which the person who claims any relief sets forth his cause of action. It corresponds to a statement, the object of which is to state the grounds upon which the person seeks the assistance of the Court for grant of the relief. The application of reference made by the claimant and on which reference is made by the Collector conforms to the aforesaid requirements of a plaint and the same having the character of a plaint, is in the nature of a plaint, the claimant being in position of the plaintiff and the Collector as a defendant. The proceedings of reference under the L.A. Act are thus entirely assimilated to those of ordinary civil suits. AIR 1967 Guj. 118 relied on. [Para 9
(7) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 --Ss.26 (1)& (2) and 18 – Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.2 (2) and (9) -- award given by reference Court under S. 26 -- is a decree under S. 2(2) and statement of reasons for the award is judgment under S. 2(2) of the Code.
A plain reading of sub-section (1) of section 26 of the L.A. Act will go to show that an award has to be in writing signed by the Judge specifying the amounts awarded together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts under various heads. Further, sub-section (2) of section 26 distinctly and emphatically in quite unambiguous terms lays down that the award made by the Judge shall be deemed to be a "decree" within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Code and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. [Para 12
(8) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- Sch. 2, Art.11 -- applicability of -- it applies to appeals which are not against decree. AIR 1976 SC 1503 followed. [Para 14
(9) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S. 54 -- appeal under -- is an appeal against decree -- ad valorem court-fees is payable on such appeal.
Section 54 in clear terms provides that the procedure applicable to appeals under the Code from original decrees shall also apply to appeals against an award made under L.A. Act, treating the award as if it is a decree of a Court and rightly so, in view of the amended provisions of section 26(2) of the Act. Again, the order passed by the High Court in appeal against the award is also regarded as a decree which is further appeal-able to Supreme Court. For these reasons also ad valorem court fees under Article IA, Schedule 1 of the Court-fees Act would be payable. AIR 1976 SC 1503 & 1977 JLJ 827 (FB) distinguished. 1992 (1) VIBHA 246 and F.A.No.35/88 overruled. 1961 JLJ 412 and 1991 (2) MPJR 203 relied on. [Paras 15 & 16]
(10) Court- fees Act, 1870 -- Sch.1 Art.1A and Sclz.2 Art.11 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.54 -- appeal under S.54 of L.A. Act -- ad valorem court-fees under Art.1A of Sch.1 is payable u fixed court-fees under Sch.2 Art.11 is not proper. [Paral6
(11) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- S.8 -- provisions under -- are special which override the other general provisions of the Act -- appeal for compensation under S.54, Land Acquisition Act - - ad valorem court fees is payable.
In the matter of appeals relating to award of compensation under the L.A. Act by parties claiming compensation money, Sec.8 of the C.F. Act, being a special provision, overrides the general provisions with regard to computation of fee. In the present case before us the respondent claims a definite sum as compensation and, therefore, the amount of fee payable on the cross-objection has to be computed on the amount so claimed as the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed in cross- objection is fully determined and that being so, ad valorem court-fees under Art. IA of Schedule 1, has to be paid on the memorandum of appeal. AIR 1932 Cal. 346 and AIR 1987 SC 180 relied on. [Para 17 & 18
Faizan Uddin, J.-- 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) (1992 (I) VIBHA 246= 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 memorandum 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- tees 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-objection in such appeals or ad valorem court fees is payable under Article I-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. Laxminarayan) decided on 7.8.1991 and reported in 1992 (I) VIBHA 246, 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 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, consequently ad
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
