( 1. ) HEARD.

( 2. ) OFFICE has raised an objection that the appellant is required to make payment of Court fee ad valorem, while the appellant has paid fixed Court fee rs. 1,50,000/- claiming benefit of the Court Fees (Madhya Pradesh amendment) Act No. 6/2008 (hereinafter referred to as amendment Act for short ).

( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant submitted that by the Amendment act a maximum Court fee on appeal has been fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/-, as per section 3 amending Schedule I Clause 1-A providing maximum Court fees and the office objection that the appellant should make payment of ad valorem court fee is not correct. He has placed reliance to the Apex Court judgment in lakshmiammal Vs. KM. Madhavakrishnan and others, AIR 1978 SC 1607, and submitted that where there is doubt in respect of payment of Court fee benefit must go to the subject. In the present case, when there is a doubt in respect of payment of Court fees, the appellant is entitled for benefit of the Amendment act. It is submitted that the office objection be repelled and the appellant be permitted to prosecute this appeal at a fixed Court fee of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

( 4. ) SHRI Vivekanand Awasthy, learned G. A. opposed the contention and submitted that the Amendment Act is prospective in nature and is applicable in respect of the matters which are filed after coming into force of the amendment Act w. e. f. 2-4-2008. It is submitted that in absence of any specific provision in the Amendment Act making its enforcement retrospectively the appellant is not entitled to take benefit of Amendment Act. Reliance is placed to an Apex Court judgment in the case of State of Bombay Vs. Mis. Supreme general Films Exchange Ltd. , AIR 1960 SC 980, a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in M. A. No. 2110/2008, Smt. Supriya Kathand and others vs. Shri Lai Singh and others, decided on 25-6-2008 and two Single Bench judgments of this Court in Dinaji Tukaram Pawar Vs. Jiwanlal Pawar, 1980 mplj 801 and Gramin Vidyut Sahkari Samiti Vs. Rajesh Kushwaha, 2000 (II)MPWN Note 70, and submitted that the contention of the appellant is without merit.

( 5. ) TO appreciate the aforesaid contention the factual position in the case may be stated. The lands of appellant were acquired by the respondents because of submergence in Indira Sagar Project (NSDC ). The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 27-1-2004 by which the appellant was allowed compensation of Rs. 13,62,232/ -. The appellant was not satisfied with the aforesaid award sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the matter was referred to the Civil Court and was registered as L. A. Case no. 1/2008 by 1st Additional District Judge, Harda. The Additional District judge considered the reference on merits after affording both the parties to adduce evidence and found that the reference of appellant was without merit and rejected the reference. Against the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Act claiming Rs. 33,26,64,445/ -. Though the appellant has valued the claim in the appeal for the aforesaid amount, but has paid Court fee of Rs. 1,50,000/- claiming benefit of Amendment Act. The office raised an objection that the reference was filed prior to coming into force of amendment Act so the appellant was liable to pay ad valorem Court fee. It is this objection which is to be decided by this order. ( 6. ) THE State of M. P. amended the Court Fees Act, 1870 by the Court fees (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2008. By Section 3 of this amendment Act, Schedule I, Article 1-A has been substituted. To appreciate the contention, firstly the statement and object of the Amendment Act may be seen, which reads thus:-

"statement of objects and reasons.- In order to rationalise the court fees leviable on plaint, written statement pleading a set-off or counter-claim, or memorandum of appeal presented to any Civil or revenue Court, it is decided to amend Article 1-A of Schedule I t