DUTTA, C. J.:- The facts leading to this revision petition are as follows. The opposite party filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate District Coun­cil Court, United Khasi-Jaintia Hills, Shillong claiming that she is the owner of a forest named Khyrdop Forest and that she had been dispossessed from the same by the petitioners. She prayed for declaration of her title and recovery of possession. She valued the suit land at Rs. 16,000/- and paid a court-fee of Rs. 150/-. It is contended by the peti­tioners that under the provisions of the Court-fees Act (hereinafter called the Act), the amount of court-fee leviable in this suit should be much higher. The petitioners raised this as a preliminary point but the Subordinate District Coun­cil Court gave no decision on it. An ap­peal before the Judge, District Council Court was dismissed. 2. Dr. Medhi, appearing on be­half of the petitioners points out that the court-fee paid by the opposite party is not at the rate laid down in the Act. Moreover, the court-fee has been paid in cash whereas under Section 25 of the Act, court-fee can be collected only by stamps. Admittedly the suit land in question is within the areas of a former Khasi State. Therefore, the question is whether the Act is in force in such an area. 3. In exercise of the powers con­ferred by Section 4 of the Extra Provin­cial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, the Governor of Assam by a notification dated June 1, 1949, extended the Act to the Khasi States with the following among other restrictions, viz. (1) the Act shall apply in relation to Courts established or continued by the authority of the Central Govern­ment. 4. Obviously, therefore, the Act does not apply to a Court constituted under the Sixth Schedule. The Sub­ordinate District Council Court is such a Court. 5. Dr. Medhi's contention is that the Act was extended to the Khasi States and its operation was confined to courts established or continued by the autho­rity of the Central Government. But the Assam Court-fees (Amendment) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the amending Act) extends to the whole of Assam and in this Act rates of Court-fees for plaints written statements etc. have been laid down when presented in any "civil or revenue court" except those mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. In Section 3, High Court and Small Causes Courts are mentioned. have been laid down when presented in any "civil or revenue court" except those mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. In Section 3, High Court and Small Causes Courts are mentioned. Hence, according to Dr. Medhi, in view of the aforesaid amend­ing Act, the Act now applies to all civil and revenue courts in the Khasi States. 6. The above contention cannot be accepted. The notification applying the Act to the Khasi States with some restrictions has not been repealed or modified by the amending Act. Repeal or modification by implication, specially of a provision imposing a tax or levy is not favoured. In the absence of express repeal or modification of the notifica­tion it cannot be said that the legislature intended to bring all civil and revenue courts even in the Khasi States into the purview of the Act by the amending Act. 7. Secondly, before adopting any proposed construction of any passage, it is important to consider the effects or consequences which would result from it, for they often point out the real in­tention of the legislature. If it is held that by the amending Act the legisla­ture intended to extend the Act to courts established by the District Council in the Khasi States, it would mean that Court-fees were leviable even in a Vil­lage Court. That could never be the intention of the legislature. Moreover, under sub-paragraph 4 of paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitu­tion of India, the Regional Council or the District Council, as the case may be is to make rules for the constitution of Village Courts, the procedure to be fol­lowed by them and all other ancillary matters. Hence the levy of court-fees in a Village Court, if any, can be im­posed and regulated by such Council only. 8. In the result, therefore, were hold that the Act does not apply to Courts established by the District Coun­cil and the petition is rejected. There' will be no order as to costs. M. C. PATHAK, J.:- 9. I agree. Petition dismissed,