Summary
Lands belonging to the appellant in District Ahmednagar were acquired under the, provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable Property Act 30 of 1952. The appellant was not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The matter was referred to the arbitrator as provided in s. 8(1)(b) of the Act. The arbitrator increased the compensation whereupon the Special Deputy Collector went in appeal to the High Court. The appellant filed cross-objections on which he paid fixed court-fee of Rs. 5/- purporting to do so under Art. 13 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court-fee Act, 1959.
The High Court however on objection taken by the State, held that Art. 13 Schedule II was not applicable to the case but the matter fell under Art. 3 of Schedule I and therefore ad valorem court-fee had to be paid on the cross-objections filed by the appellant. The appellant challenged the decision of the High Court in an appeal to this Court by special leave. Reliance on behalf of the respondent was placed upon s. 7(1) of the Bombay Court-fee Act which provided that the amount of court-fee payable under the Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order of compensation relating to acquisition of land for public purposes "shall be ,computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant"., The contentions urged on behalf of the appellant were : (i) that the award of the arbitrator was not an ,order'. (ii) that an order to come within s. 7(1) must have the force of a decree; (iii) that Art. 3 of Sch. I was inapplicable because it only referred to plaints, applications or petitions (including memorandum of appeal) but not to cross- objections which were expressly referred to in Art. 1, Sch.1.HELD : (i) The contention that the award made by the arbitrator was something which had no effect and therefore it could not be considered as an order,was not acceptable.It is, true that it is not an order' as defined in the Civil Procedure Code, the same having not been made by a civil court. But the expression 'order' is not defined in the Act. The award of the arbitrator is undoubtedly a 'formal expression of a decision made by a competent authority.Further it is a decision binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made. The question 147whether the order in question was executable or not is irrelevant forthe purpose of determining the point in issue. [150 C-D](ii) Section 7(1) clearly applies to an appeal filed under the Act.It is not a charging section. it only provides for the computation ofthe, court-fee payable. But that provision makes it clear that it relates tothe computation of a court-fee payable on ad valorem basis. it can have no connection with any Article-providing for the payment of fixed court-fee. Therefore the computation provided under that provision can only be of a court-fee payable under one or the other article in Sch. I. [150 H]Section 7(1) does not say that the order under appeal must have the force of a decree. It would not therefore be proper to add the words "having the force of a decree" after the word 'order' in s. 7(1). [151 F](iii) A cross-objection is a memorandum of appeal in. substance though not in form. It is a right given to a respondent in an appeal to challenge the order under appeal to the extent he is aggrieved by that order. The memorandum of cross-objection is but one form of appeal, It takes the place of a cross-appeal. It is true that while Art. 1 of Sch. I refers to 'cross-objection' Art. 3 of that Sch. does not refer to crossobjection as such but that makes no difference. It is' only inartistic drafting. [152 E-F]The High Court was therefore right in holding that ad valorem courtfee had to be paid by the appellant on his cross-objections.Anandalal Chakarbarti, [1931] I.L.R. 59 Cal. 528, applied.The Chatusshakhiya Brahmavrinda Gayaran Trust v. Union of India,. 70 B.L.R. 407, approved.Shri Kanwar Jagat Bahadur Singh v. The Punjab State, [1957]I.L.R. Punjab 142, referred to.See the full content of this document
Extract
Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade VS. Spl. Deputy Collector, Ahmadnagar And Another
PETITIONER: SAHADU GANGARAM BHAGADE Vs.RESPONDENT: SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AHMADNAGAR AND ANOTHERDATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/1970BENCH: HEGDE, K.S.BENCH: HEGDE, K.S.SHAH, J.C.GROVER, A.N.CITATION: 1971 AIR 1887 1971 SCR (1) 146ACT: Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 30 of 1952, ss. 8 and 11--Award as to compensation by arbitrator--Appeal and cross-objections filed--Court-fee payable on cross-objections under provisions of Bombay Court Fee Act, 1959--Fixed fee to be paid under Art. 13 Sch. II or ad valorem fee under Art. 3 Sch. 1.Bombay Court-Fee Act, 1959, s. 7(1), Art. 3 Sch. I, Art.13 Sch. II--Award of arbitrator under s. 8 of Requisitioning and Acquisitio...
See the full content of this document