Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 319 (CHH)

Vishnu Kumar Verma v. State of C. G.

2013-11-07

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2013
ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1416/2004, application for appropriate orders. This is first appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the award dated 15.04.2002 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Land Acquisition Case No. 13/2001 by which reference made by the appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 has been rejected by the Reference Court holding that the compensation as assessed and awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper. The appellant was having 3.188 hectares of land which was acquired by the respondents/State Authorities and was awarded only Rs.2,71,424/- for the acquired land. 2. The Registry of this Court has taken an objection on 20.01.2004 stating that according to Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, ad valorem court fee as required by Clause 1A of Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is required to be paid by the appellant according to difference between amount awarded and amount claimed by the appellant, but the appellant has not paid the requisite court fee along with memo of appeal and, thereafter, I.A. No. 1416/2004 was filed for appropriate orders. 3. Shri Sameer Uraon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging the award of reference Court Article 11 of the Schedule II of the Court Fees Act would be applicable and fixed court fee would be payable and Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 would not be applicable and, therefore, appellant is not required to pay the ad valorem court fee and submits in view of above, the office objection deserves to be overruled. 4. In order to understand the controversy, it would be appropriate to notice Section 8 of the Court Fees Act and Rule 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, which read as under:-- Number Proper fee 11. Memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having the force of a decree, and is presented- (a) hen presented to High Court Seven Rupees and fifty paise (b) When presented to Civil Court other than the High Court Three Rupees. 8. Memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having the force of a decree, and is presented- (a) hen presented to High Court Seven Rupees and fifty paise (b) When presented to Civil Court other than the High Court Three Rupees. 8. Fee on memorandum of appeal against order relating to compensation.--The amount of fee payable under this Act on a 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. And Article II Schedule II of Court Fee Act:-- 5. A bare perusal of the Rule II of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 would show that fixed court fee would be payable when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having the force of a decree, and is present to the Competent Court. 6. Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides form of awards which reads as under:-- 26. Form of awards.--(1) ................... (2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2, clause (2) and section 2, clause (9), respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 7. Thus, by virtue of Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act shall be deemed to be a decree and statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment with in the meaning Section 2(2) & 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides as under:-- 54. 8. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides as under:-- 54. Appeals in proceedings before Court.--Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in Order XLIV thereof. 9. A bare perusal of Section 54 of the Act would show that procedure applicable to appeals under the Code from original decree shall apply to the appeals against an award as if as it a decree of a court in view of Section 26(2) of the Act. Again the order passed by the High Court in appeal against the award is also regarded as decree, which is further appealable. For these reasons, ad valorem Court fee under Article 1A, Schedule 1 of the Court fee would be payable. 10. Thus, the appellant was required to file appeal along with fee on difference between amount awarded and amount claimed. Compensation. Herein compensation awarded is Rs.2,71,424/- and the amount claimed by the appellant is Rs. 15,09,400/-. Thus, the appellant was required to pay court fee on amount of Rs.12,37,976/- which has not been paid. Thus, it is held that for appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, court fee is required to be paid as per Section 8 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 and Rule 11 of Schedule II is not attracted. 11. In a Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Seth Gowardhandas S/o. Seth Brijmohandas Maheshwari AIR 1993 M.P. 70 has answered the question in appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 would be applicable and held as under:-- 17. 11. In a Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Seth Gowardhandas S/o. Seth Brijmohandas Maheshwari AIR 1993 M.P. 70 has answered the question in appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 would be applicable and held as under:-- 17. The question of valuation of appeal against an award in land acquisition cases and payment of court fees on memorandum of appeal against such award is further fortified by the provisions of Section 8 of the Court-fees Act. Section 8 of the C.F. Act reads as under:-- Fee on memorandum of appeal against order relating to compensation.-- The amount of fee payable under this Act on a 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. A perusal of Section 8 of the C.F. Act quoted above would reveal that it is not in itself a charging section as it does not by itself impose any court fees but it does provide a salutary rule for compensation of the fee payable under the C.F. Act in a certain class of cases with which it deals. It clearly lays down the rule that the amount of fee payable on a 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 two sums, that is, the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant in appeal. In case of claim of difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant, the amount is calculable and determinable accurately and, therefore, in can also not be said that the valuation of appeal is incapable of calculation. The words and language of Section 8 of the C.F. Act are very comprehensive and wide enough to cover memorandum of appeals against all orders relating to compensation under any Act for time being in force for acquisition of land for public purposes. The words and language of Section 8 of the C.F. Act are very comprehensive and wide enough to cover memorandum of appeals against all orders relating to compensation under any Act for time being in force for acquisition of land for public purposes. In the matter of appeals relating to award of compensation under the L.A. Act by parties claiming compensation money, Section 8 of the C.F. Act, being a special provision, overrides the general provisions with regard to computation of fee. In the present case before us the respondent claims a definite sum as compensation and, therefore, the amount of fee payable on the cross-objection has to be computed on the amount so claimed as the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed in cross-objection is fully determined and that being so, ad valorem court-fees under Art. 1A of Schedule I, has to be paid on the memorandum of appeal. 10. Further, the Supreme Court in case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Tarak Singh and others AIR 1995 SC 1828 has held as under:-- 7. In this context, it is relevant to note S. 8, of the MP. Court Fees Act which reads thus: Fee on Memo of appeal against order relating to compensation:-- The amount of fee payable under this Act on a Memo, of Appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public purpose shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. It is true that the appellant is not the claimant. But when the appellant seeks to avoid the decree, which is made by the reference Court, it must be construed that the appellant is seeking to avoid the amount of higher compensation determined by the reference Court, as claimed by the land owners. Therefore, the appellant is required to pay the Court fee on the memorandum of appeal to the extent on which the appellant seeks to avoid the higher compensation awarded by the reference Court under the Central Act. When its legality is challenged by filing the appeal under Section 54, the difference of the amount for which appeal is filed, ad valorem Court fee under Section 8 is required to be paid. When its legality is challenged by filing the appeal under Section 54, the difference of the amount for which appeal is filed, ad valorem Court fee under Section 8 is required to be paid. Article 11 of Scheduled II has no application, since it is expressly covered by Section 8 of the M.P. Court-fees Act . 11. In view of above settled legal position, I have no hesitation to hold that the appellant was required to pay court ad valorem court fee Clause 1A of Schedule 1 as per Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant i.e. ` 13,22,576/- which has not been paid by the appellant till this date. 12. Accordingly, the application for appropriate order filed by the appellant has no merit and deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 13. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable for want of requisite court fee. No order as to costs.