Judgment :- 1. A question relating to court fee payable on a revision petition filed before the High Court under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") comes up for consideration in these two cases. 2. The skeletal facts necessary for the consideration of the question are: An application under S.80 of the Act for purchase of a kudikidappu was allowed by the Land Tribunal. Respondents before the Land Tribunal took up the matter in appeal. The appeals were also unsuccessful. The revision is directed against the orders of the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. 3. The memorandum of revision petition concluded with the statement: "Valuation is below Rs. 1000/-. But no court fees is paid in view of S.116 of the Act read with R.127 of the Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules". 4. The office of the High Court did not accept the correctness of the above statement of counsel. Attention of counsel was drawn to Art.11(p) of Schedule IT of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Court fee under that provision was directed to be paid. Even thereafter, the revision petitioner's counsel maintained that no court fee was payable. The matter was therefore placed before the court for its decision. 5. Notice was issued to the Advocate General. The matter was elaborately argued thereafter. Smt. Vanaja Madhavan appeared on behalf of the State and supported the stand taken by the High Court Office. 6. It is desirable that the relevant statutory provisions are read before the contentions of counsel on either side are considered. The charging section is S.4 of the Court Fees Act. Thereunder, no document chargeable with fee under that Act can be filed in any court unless the fee indicated has been paid in respect of the case. The computation of fee is provided in Chapter IV of the Act. That section attracts the provisions of Schedules I and II. The schedule that is applicable to a revision petition is Schedule II, Art.11(p) whereof has been already referred to by the Office. It reads: "(p) Revision Petition presented to the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, or under S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957 or under the provisions of any other Act, arising out of a suit or proceedings Table:#1 7. It reads: "(p) Revision Petition presented to the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, or under S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957 or under the provisions of any other Act, arising out of a suit or proceedings Table:#1 7. The revision petitions are not those filed under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957. Are they filed "under the provisions of any other Act, arising out of a suitor proceeding!" 8. That the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 1964, would answer the description of 'any other Act' occurring in Art.11(p) does not admit of any doubt. The revision petitions do arise out of proceedings under such an Act. This is clear from the provisions of S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the relevant portion of which reads: "103. Revision by High Court: (1) Any person aggrieved by (i) any final order passed in an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal or; (ii) any final order passed by the Land Board under this Act or; (iii) any final order of the Taluk Land Board under this Act, may within such time as may be prescribed, prefer a petition to the High Court against the order on the ground that the appellate authority or the Land Board, or the Taluk Land Board, as the case may be, has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law." 9. Reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner on R.127 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules. Under that rule, the rate of fee is indicated in respect of the documents listed in the appendix. A revision petition is not one of the documents so referred to in that appendix. If therefore the regulation of payment of court fee payable is entirely governed by the provisions of R.127, it would appear that no levy of fee is made on revision petition under S.103 of the Act. Can, in such a situation, the provisions of Art.11(p) be invoked? Counsel for the petitioner so posed the question. If therefore the regulation of payment of court fee payable is entirely governed by the provisions of R.127, it would appear that no levy of fee is made on revision petition under S.103 of the Act. Can, in such a situation, the provisions of Art.11(p) be invoked? Counsel for the petitioner so posed the question. Support for his stand, in that connection was sought from S.2(2) of the Court Fees Act, which reads as follows: "2(2) Where any other law contains provisions relating to the levy of fee in respect of proceedings under such other law, the provisions of this Act relating to the levy of fee in respect of such proceedings shall apply subject to the said provisions of such other law." (emphasis supplied). 10. According to counsel provisions of the Court Fees Act have been subordinated to the provisions of another law, when that law provides for the levy of fee in respect of proceedings thereunder. The logical extension of the contention of Counsel is that the Land Reforms Act contains an exhaustive and self-contained field relating to court fee payable in respect of the different proceedings. It is unnecessary and impermissible then to transplant some others from a different field, even if that one contains some of a general stock. Attractive though the argument is, I am unable to accept the same. It is a well understood principle of law that the provisions of different enactments have to be read harmoniously, and to the extent possible, in such a manner as not to impinge upon the efficacy of each other. If, in respect of a revision under the Land Reforms Act, a different fee had been as a matter of fact stipulated under that Act; sub-section 2(2) of the Court Fees Act would have application and would have elbowed out the provisions of the Court Fees Act in relation to the fee payable on such a revision petition. Such a situation exists in respect of various applications/ proceedings referred to in R.127, though such applications/ proceedings may answer the general item of an application or petition dealt with also under the Court Fees Act. Such a situation exists in respect of various applications/ proceedings referred to in R.127, though such applications/ proceedings may answer the general item of an application or petition dealt with also under the Court Fees Act. Notwithstanding the fact that each one of these 22 types of applications, proceedings, appeals or statements are covered by the provisions of the Court Fees Act also, the fee levied under R.127 of the Tenancy Rules will, in these cases, prevail over the general provisions of the Court Fees Act, having regard to the imperative language of sub-section (2) of S.2 of the Court Fees Act. That, however, does not mean that in respect of a proceeding which is absent in the appendix to R.127, the provisions of the Court Fees Act are impotent. If there is no competing entry in the appendix to R.127, the proceedings or the document would be brought under the vortex of the provisions of the Court Fees Act and the schedule thereto. When it is so brought under the provisions of the Court Fees Act, the only search is as to the appropriate item in the Schedule, imposing the fee. As stated earlier, that would obviously be Art.11 (p) of the IInd Schedule. 11. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the term 'proceedings' have been given a wide interpretation in the decision in Nanjappa v. Vimala Devi, AIR. 1957 Mysore 44. Acceptance of that proposition however will not advance the contention of the revision petitioner, which has necessarily to be resolved by a reference to the relevant provisions already adverted to. In the result I hold that court fee is payable on the revision petitions filed under S.103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and that fees properly chargeable are those indicated under Art.11(p) of the Second Schedule to the Court Fees Act.