LexINDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus TARAK SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. TARAK SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. MAY 1, 1995 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Land Acquisitiot>-Reference Court-Order granting enhanced compen- C satiort-Memorandum of Appeal againsl-Cowt fee payable on-Held ad valoram Cowt fee is payable-Section 8 of the M.P. Court Fees Act, 1870 held applicable. D M.P. Cowt Fees Act, 1870 : Section fr-Schedule II-Article I I-Ap- plicability of The appellant-authority filed a .memorandum of appeal in the High Court against an order by which the Reference Court granted enhanced compensation to the claimants for the lands acquired by the appellant- authority. On this memorandum of appeal the authority paid ftxed court E fees. However, relying on its Full Bench Judgment reported in State of M.P. v. Goverdhandas, (1993) JLJ 280, the High Court passed an order dated 27.10.93 requiring the appellant-Authority to pay ad valoram court fee. The appellant Authority filed appeals before this Court contending that it was not a claimant and Section 8 of the M.P. Court fees Act, 1870 was Inapplicable and only rixed court fee prescribed under Article 11 of F Schedule II of the Act was applicable. Disposing the appeals, this Court HELD : The appellants are required to pay ad valoram court fee. It Is true that the appellant is not the claimant; but when it seeks to avoid G 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. There- fore, the appellant is required to pay the court fee on the memorandum of appeal to the extent to which the appellant seeks to avoid the higher H compensation awarded by the Reference Court under the Central Act. 1100 l ( INDOREDEVELOPMENTAU1HORITYv. TARAKSlNGH 1101 When its legality is challenged by filing the appeal under Section 54, the A •· "r' difference of the amount for which appeal is filed, ad valoram court fee under section 8 is required to be paid. Article 11 of Schedule II has no application, since it is ell)lressly covered by section 8 of the M.P. Court Fee Act. (1104-C, 1103-E-F) f· C.G. Ghanshamdas & Ors. v. Collector of Madras, AIR (1987) SC.1800 B. relied on. Diwan Bros. v. Central Bank of India Bombay, (1976) Suppl. SCR 664, held inapplicable. State of M.P. v. Goverdhandas, (1993) JW 280, approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5645-46 of 1995. c From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.93 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in FA. No. 204 of 1993. D V.R. Reddy Additional Solicitor General and Vivek Gambbir for the Appellant. Niraj Sharma, Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnibotri for the Respon- dents. E The following Order of tho Court was delivered : Leave granted. The appellant acquired the land under the Land Acquisition Act, F 1894 (for short, 'Central Act') and on reference under s.18 the District Judge, Indore enhanced the compensation from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 88,000 per hectare. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed the memorandum of appeal in the High Court and paid the fixed court fee. By order dated 27.10.83, the appellant was called upon to pay the ad va/oram court fee. G Calling in question the order, the appellant filed these appeals by special leave. -; / The High Court has relied upon its Full Bench decision reported in State of M:P. v. Goverdhandas, (1993} Jl.J 280. The principal contention of Shri V.R, Reddy, the learned Additional Solicitor, is that the appellant is H 1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R. A not a claimant. Section 8 of the M.P. Court Fees Act, 1879 (for short, 'the Act') has no application to the facts in this case. Article 11 of Schedule II of the Act is applicable and that, therefore, they are required to pay only the fixed court fee prescribed thereunder.· He also seeks to canvass the correctness of the judgment of the Full Bench in that behalf. B Having considered the respective contentions, we are of the view that the Full Bench of the High Court of M.P. has laid down th_e law correctly. Section 3( d) of the Central Act defines the 'Court' to mean a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Section 18 of the Central Act gives right to the claimant or the owner of the land for seeking reference. The C Collector is enjoined to make a reference for the determination of the objection raised
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.