Judgment 1. This is a reference under s. 5, Court- fees Act, & relates to an appeal against an award of the Additional Dist. J. at Purulia in a reference under S. 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The compensation awarded by the Collector is Rs. 11, 619-3 0. The reference related to (1) the correctness of the compensation assessed & (2) a dispute between three sets of persons as to whioh of them is entitled to the compensation. The Additional Dist. J. has accepted as correct the amount awarded & has rejected the claim of the appellants to the compensation. The appeal has been filed under S. 54, Land Acquisition Act. The appellants merely raise the question of title &, treating the appeal as a miscellaneous appeal, have paid court- fee under Art. 11 of Sch. II, Court-fees Act. On behalf of the State, it is contended that an ad valorem court-fee on the total amount of the compensation awarded is payable under Art. 1 of sch. I, Court-fees Act. 2. Article ll of Sch. II, Court-fees Act, relates to "Memo. of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having the force of a decree, etc." Under S. 26, subs. (2), Land Acquisition Act, every award under Part. III of the Act, under which part the award in the present case has been made, shall be deemed to be a decree. In view of this provision, I do not think that this Article is applicable. 1951 Pat./77 3. It is contended for the appellants that, if Art. 11 of Sch. II does not apply the proper provision is either Cl. (iii) or Cl. (iv) of Art. 17 of Sch. II : "Plaint or memo. of appeal in each of the following suits. * * * iii. to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed; iv. to set aside an award." The weakness in this contention is that the proceeding in which the award was obtained cannot be described as a suit. The word "suit" is a technical term with a well-understood legal significance. Sec.26, Land Acquisition Act, provides that the award made in the proceeding instituted under S. 18 shall be deemed to be a decree, but this does not make the proceeding a suit. The word "suit" is a technical term with a well-understood legal significance. Sec.26, Land Acquisition Act, provides that the award made in the proceeding instituted under S. 18 shall be deemed to be a decree, but this does not make the proceeding a suit. 4 Sec. 4, Court-fees Act, prescribes that no document of any of the kinds specified in the first or second schedule to the Act as chargeable with fees shall be filed in or received by any High Court in any case coming before such Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction as regards appeals from the Courts subject to its superintendence or in the exercise of its jurisdiction as a Court of reference or revision unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said schedules as the proper fee for such document. As there is in the schedule no particular provision that applies to the present case, we have to fall back on the residuary Article, Art. No. 1 of Sch. I, which prescribes an ad valorem court-fee. Some doubt as to the applicability of this Article to appeals in the High Court has been caused by the last few words which occur in col 1; "presented to any civil or revenue Court except those mentioned in section". This, however, is only due to unskilful drafting (vide Krishna Mohan Sinha V/s. Baghunandan Pande, i Pat. 336), & it is generally accepted that the Article applies to High Courts, although High Courts are among the Courts mentioned in S. 3. I would suggest that the word "those" occurring at the end of the entry in Col. 1 refers not to Courts but to the documents mentioned in S. 3. 5. As regards the manner in which the valuation of the appeal will be computed for the purposes of applying Art. 1 of Sch. I, a special provision is contained in S. 8, Court-fees Act. 1 refers not to Courts but to the documents mentioned in S. 3. 5. As regards the manner in which the valuation of the appeal will be computed for the purposes of applying Art. 1 of Sch. I, a special provision is contained in S. 8, Court-fees Act. This section, has been held to apply not only to appeals in which the correctness of the amount of compensation awarded is challenged but also to appeals which concern questions of title, the section heing applied on the basis that the appellant claims a certain amount of compensation as representing the value of his interest in the acquired property & he is given nothing or a smaller amount by the decision which he is challenging: Muhammad Suleman V/s. Ghamandi Lal, A. I. R. (18) 1931 Lah. 343, & Anandalal Chakravarty v. Karnani Industrial Bank, Ltd., 59 Cal. 528. . The section, however, occurs in Chap III, Court. fees Act, which relates to "Fees in other Courts & in public offices", in consequence of which Mullick, J. observed in Krishna Mohan Sinhas case, that the section does not apply to the appeals filed in the High Court. The section has been applied to appeals in the High Court as long ago Kasturi Chetti V/s. Deputy Collector, Bellary, (21 Mad. 269) & Trinayani Dasi V/s. Krishna Lal, (39 Cal. 906) & it was so applied by Eankin, C. J. in Anandalal Ghakravartis case, observing that the heading of the chapter in which the section occurs should not be allowed to cut down the plain meaning of the section. It is unnecessary, to consider the applicability of the section in the present case for it is plain that the result would be the same if the value of the appeal is computed according to the natural meaning of the term. According to the claim of the appellants, they are entitled to the entire amount of compensation awarded. According to the decision, which they challenge & are trying to get set aside, they are entitled to nothing. Hence, the value of the appeal is the entire amount of the compensation awarded. 6. For the reasons which I have given, I consider the appellants are liable to pay ad valorem court-fee under Art. 1 of Sch. I on Rs. 11, 619-3-0. The reference is answered accordingly.