KASHI RAM NAMDEO ZAMBRO
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
OCTOBER 31, 1995
IK. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KTRPAL, J.J.j
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
S. IS-Reference to Civil Cowt-Application fm'-(;owt-fee-Held, not
required.
Certain lands were acquired under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act, 1894. The Collector made the award and the land owner was
required to pay deficit court fee, which he paid. If the reference proceed-
ings, the Civil Court upheld the preliminary objection that the reference
A
B
c
was not maintainable as the court tee was not paid within time. The High D
Court also held against the land-owner. Aggrieved, the land owner filed
the appeal by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. The Civil Court and the High Court have committed grave E
error of law in rejecting the claim of the appellant for determination of the
compensation.
2. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a self-contained Code and it
does not speak of payment of any court-fee. It requires only that the
application for seeking reference under s.18 should be made within the
limitation prescribed either in clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (2). The
applicant is not enjoined under law to pay any court-fee on the application
made under section 18(1). [618-G]
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3604 of G
1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27/29.4.82 of the Bombay High
Court in C.R.A. Nos. 533-43 of 1981
G.B. Sathe for the Appellant.
617
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
D.M. Nargolkar and S.M. Jadhav for the Respondent.
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short' 'the Act) was published in the State Gazelle on January 16, 1975,
acquiring certain extent of land part of which land belonged to the appel-
lant for construction of 'Panzar Talaw'. The Collector made his award
under Section lJ on November 15, 1977. Notice of award as required under
Section 12 was served on the appellant on November 17, 1977. On an
objection raised, the appellant made good the deficit court-fee. Thereafter
C
the Collector made the reference to the Civil Court. During the reference
proceedings, the counsel appearing for the State raised a preliminary
objection as to the maintainability of the reference which was upheld since
requisite court-fee was not paid within the limitation of six weeks from the
date of the receipt of the notice of the award, as required under clause (b)
D of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. On appeal, the High Court
upheld the contention by judgment dated 27th to 29th April, 1982 and
accordingly dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave against
the decree of the Bombay High Court.
E
F
The only question that arises for consideration is whether the
claimant is required to pay court-fee on an application seeking reference
under Section 18. We are at a loss to understand that a claimant is required
to pay ad valoram court fee on an amount awarded by the Collector under
section 11 for seeking reference under section 18. What is required is to
make a written application with particulars envisaged under Section 18(2)
of the Act, to the Collector requiring the matter to be referred to Civil
Court to decide his objection regarding measurement of the land or the
amount of compensation or the person to whom it is payable or the
apportionment of the compensation awarded to the persons interested.
The Act is a self-contained Code and it does not speak of payment of any
court-fee. It requires only that the application should be made within the
G limitation prescribed either in clause (a) or (b) of Sub-section (2) of the
Act. rt is, therefore, clear that non-payment of the deficit court-fee, though
wrongly made by the appellant, is not a necessary. The owner or person
interested is not enjoined under law to pay any court-fee on the application
made under section 18(1) seeking reference for determination of the
H
compensation by the Civil Court etc. The Civil Court and the High Court,
K.R.N.ZAMBROv. STATE
619
therefore, have committed grave error of Jaw in rejecting the claim of the A
1ppellant for determination of the compensation.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of Courts below
stand set aside. The Civil Court shall now proceed to determine the
compensation according to law. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal allowed·.
B
Lex