( 1. ) THE questions have been referred for opinion by the Taxing Officer (i) whether ad valorem court-fee is payable on the memo of appeal filed under section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, and (ii)whether the appeal is to be registered as a regular appeal or as miscellaneous appeal.

( 2. ) AGAINST the award of compensation of Rs. 2,92,48,604. 50 p. /- of the arbitrator under section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable property Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Union of India has preferred this appeal and paid Court-fee stamp worth Rs. 8. 86,460/ -. The Office had taken an objection that only miscellaneous appeal lies against the award and not a regular appeal as has been preferred by the appellant. Therefore, this Court asked the taxing Officer to examine the matter with reference to the decision of the Supreme court in S. C. Bhagada vs. Spl. Dy. Collector, Ahmednagar AIR 1971 SC 1887. The taxing Officer in his report has opined that under section 8 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, a rule has been provided for computing ad-valorem court-fee payable on a memo of appeal against an order relating to grant of compensation, although this section itself is not a charging section as has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The Supreme Court has further held that it is not necessary for application of the section that the order under appeal should have the force of a decree. The Taxing Officer has also opined that it has to be registered as a regular appeal because appeals under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act are registered as regular appeals.

( 3. ) UNDER section 8 of the Court-fees Act the amount of fee payable on memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public purposes, shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. This means that in any appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act, ad valorem court-fee is payable on the amount under challenge and there is direct decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case which further provided that a cross-objection filed by the respondent in an appeal is a memorandum of appeal in substance though not in form and ad valorem Court-fee is payable. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that ad valorem Court-fee is payable under section 11 of the Act and proper Court-fee has been paid by the appellant.

( 4. ) NOW the question remains whether the appeal is to be registered as regular appeal or as a miscellencous appeal. Rule 384 of the M. P. Civil Court Rules provides that all appeals from decrees in suits shall be registered as regular appeals. Under Rule 385, amongst others, clause (xi) provides that an appeal against an appealable order under any Central or local Act has to be registered as a miscellaneous appeal. So the present appeal can be registered as a regular appeal provided this is an appeal from decree in suit. Under the Act, award has to be given by the Arbitrator under section 8 and a person can be appointed as the Arbitrator by the Central Government who is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court. After the question of amount of compensation payble is referred to the Arbitrator, the Central Government and the claimant have to state what in their opinion is a fair amount of compensation. After hearing the parties, the Arbitrator shall make an award and also decide any dispute as to the person or persons who are entitled to the compensation but nothing contained in the Arbitration Act, 1940, shall apply to arbitration under this section. The compensation payable for acquisition of any property shall be the price which the property would have fetched in the open market at the time of requisitioning. Under section 9 the amount of compensation awarded has to be paid by the competen