Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 742 (AP)

Pittala Lachavva v. Deddeti Venkataiah

2013-09-11

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, G.ROHINI

body2013
Judgment : 1. The matter is listed before us for orders on the following objections raised by the office: 1) Please mention correct provision of law in the grounds copy and wherever necessary. 2) Please pay the deficient court fee, if any. 3) Please clarify and state as to how this appeal is entertainable under Section 54 of LA Act against decree and Judgment dated 22.04.2013 in LAOP No.35 of 2010 in view of judgment of Division Bench i.e. 2006(3) ALD 199 (DB). 2. The said LAOP was filed under Section 30 of LA Act. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirsilla in LAOP No.35 of 2010 on a reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in view of the dispute between the claimants i.e., the appellant and the respondents 1& 2 herein as to the title of the land acquired. 4. Though the value of the appeal is shown as Rs.18,98,700/- i.e., the value of the land acquired, the appellant paid a fixed court fee of Rs.300/-. 5. Therefore the above noticed objections are raised by the office both as to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and with regard to the fixed court fee paid. 6. The question with regard to the maintainability of the appeal against the order on a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act where no amount is awarded to the claimant as well as the court fee payable on such appeal has already been considered by this Court. In A.S.SR. No.105642 of 1981 (A.S.No. 1804 of 1988) it was held by a Division Bench by order dated 05.08.1983 that Section 47 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short “A.P. Court Fees Act”) alone is attracted to the cases where compensation is totally denied on the ground of absence of title and thus the fixed court fees shall be paid. Relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Mahalinga Kudumban Vs. Relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Mahalinga Kudumban Vs. Theetharappa Modaliyar (AIR 1929 Madras 223) it was held by this Court that in such circumstances Section 48 of the A.P. Court Fees Act and Schedule I Article 1(c) prescribing advalorem court fees do not apply. 7. Relying upon the very same decision of the Madras High Court in Mahalinga Kudumban’s case (1 Supra) it was held in a later decision in Motte Rajaram v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad ( 2006 (3) ALD 199 (DB) that any decision rendered by the competent Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be necessarily dealt with or guided by the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore an appeal lies to the competent Civil Court under Section 96 of C.P.C. 8. Thus, it is clear that advalorem court fees is payable under Section 48 of the A.P. Court Fees Act only in appeals where enhancement of compensation is claimed, but where the claim of the appellant was rejected by the reference Court in toto, fixed court fees is payable as provided under Section 47. 9. In the case on hand, the appellant is one of the claimants with respect to the compensation awarded in the land acquisition proceedings. On a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act the Civil Court held that the appellant is not entitled to receive any compensation. Therefore the appellant’s claim in the present appeal squarely falls under Section 47 of the A.P. Court Fees Act and consequently fixed court fees is payable. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, Office Objection Nos.1 and 3 with regard to the maintainability of the appeal are upheld. Insofar as Office Objection No.2 is concerned, in view of the law laid down in the above said decisions, the fixed Court Fee of Rs.300/-under Section 47 of the A.P. Court Fees Act has been rightly paid and therefore the said objection is overruled. 11. The appellant is hereby permitted to convert the appeal as a regular appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. within two weeks from today.