VIJAYWADA-GUNTUR-TENALI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. versus MOVVA RANGA RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 22-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

VIJAYWADA-GUNTUR-TENALI URBAN 
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 
v. 
MOVV A RANGA RAO AND ORS. 
APRIL 22, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Advocates' Fees Rules (framed l>y A.P. High Cow1) : 
A 
B 
Rules 4(11), S(g), 26-Piirnte Cou11sc!-Paymc11t of fees'-La11d Ac-
C 
quisition cascs-Maxinuun being Rs. 200(}--(,'oun lzas to /i111it the fee to Rs. 
ZOOO-GJ11usd for both the sides to calculate the jec-77lereafter the amount 
to be notified to the Regist1y of the S1t]Jre1nc Cvu1t and it 1vill be inco1JJorated 
in the order. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7730 of D 
Jl)96. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.A. No. 590 of 1994. 
Narasimha P.S. and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellants. 
R. Mohan, M.A. Chinnaswamy and G. Prabhakar for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
E 
F 
The only question is : \Vhether the respondent is entitled to a mini-
mum fee of Rs. 2,000 in each of the reference cases in \vhich tI'.e reference 
Court has certified it lo be the fee payable to the respondent'! The 
respondent appeared as a counsel for the appellant on land acquisition G 
reference initially as Government Pleader and after he ceased as such, he 
filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant and appeared as private 
counsel. On the basis of the memorandum of costs supplied to the respon-
dent, he claimed the amount from the appellant but the appellant has 
disputed the liability. On a reference made to the Advocate General of fl 
627 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. J S.C.R. 
A 
Andhra Pradesh, the Advocate General has certified that the fee claimed 
is correct one and the respondent is entitled to the same. However, the 
respondent being not satisfied with it, insisted upon the proper fixation of 
the fee payable lo him. Since the appellants have nol been making payment 
of the fee to which the respondent is entitled, the respondent has filed the 
B writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court in 
W.A. No. 590/94, by judgment and order dated September 5, 1995 has held 
that once the court has fixed the fee, the appellants are bound lo pay the 
same and they cannot go behind the fee fixed by the Court. 
The High Court seems to have proceeded on the premise that under 
C 
the Advocate's Fees Rules the Court fixes the fee and that parties arc 
bound by the same by holding that it is a contractual relation. There is a 
distinction in payment of the fee between the private counsel and the State 
counsel. As far as the State counsel are concerned, their fee is regulated 
by the rules prescribed by the State Government and thereunder the 
D Government counsel is entitled to the fee or the fee fixed by the Court. Jn 
the latter event, the Government is bound to pay the fee. As regards the 
private counsel, the High Court of A.P. has made the rules, viz., Advocates 
Fees Rules. The same rules are in vogue as on date. 
Rule S(g) prescribed fee in other cases. It contemplates prescribing 
E . fee in land acquisition cases envisaging that "in Land Acquisition Cases as 
between the Collector and the claimants, the fee shall be 5% on the amount 
claimed· in excess of the award subject to rninimum of Rs. 100 and a 
maximum of Rs. 2,000. As between rival claimants, the fee shall be calcu-
lated as for suits under Rule 4(Il). 
F 
G 
It would, therefore, be clear that in cases where the fees is to be fixed 
on the basis of the claim on a reference, the court has to calculate the fee 
on the amount claimed the reference and awarded under Section 28 subject 
to a minimum of Rs. 100 at the rate of 5% on the amount claimed by the 
claimants and the maximum thereof would be Rs. 2,000. It would thus be 
clear that in ev.ery case, necessarily, it would not be Rs. 2,000. It depends 
·upon the valuation of the Claim awatded under Section 26 and the amount 
to be cal<;lllated varies between the minimum and the maximum. If the 
amount claimed is far in excess of 5% and fee calcnlated exceeds 2,000 the 
court has to lirnit the fee to Rs. 2,000 in spite of the amount awarded, it 
·H would secure fee of the advocates exceeding Rs. 2,000. It does not per se 
' 
VJJAYWADA-GUNTUR-lENALI URBAN DEV. AUfHORITY v. MR RAO 629 
yield to the respondent that in each case, counsel would be paid Rs. 2,000. A 
In every case, the maximum of Rs. 2,000 should not be required to be 
determined. 
Shri Mohan, learned senior counsel f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.