Holding

The memorandum of appeal falls within section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and the fee must be paid ad valorem on the difference between the awarded and claimed compensation.

Summary

The appellants owned property that had been requisitioned by the Government under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, and a compensation award of Rs.21,000 per month was fixed by an arbitrator, which the appellants contested. They appealed to the Madras High Court under section 11 of the Requisitioning Act, and the High Court held that court fee on the memorandum of appeal must be computed ad valorem under section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, based on the difference between the awarded and claimed compensation. The appellants argued that requisition is not an acquisition and that the arbitrator’s award is not an "order" within the meaning of the fee provision, contending that a fixed fee under the residuary article should apply. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions, holding that requisition amounts to acquisition for the purposes of the fee statute and that the arbitrator’s award qualifies as an "order" relating to compensation under an acquisition law. Consequently, the fee must be paid ad valorem and the appeal was dismissed, with the appellants directed to pay the deficit court fee.

Issues considered

The requisition of property under the Requisitioning Act constitutes an "acquisition" for the purposes of section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
Whether the arbitrator’s award under section 8 of the Requisitioning Act qualifies as an "order" within the meaning of section 51 of the Court Fees Act.
Whether the court fee on the memorandum of appeal should be computed ad valorem under section 51 or as a fixed fee under the residuary provision of Schedule II.

Legislation cited

Court Fees Act, 1870s. 8
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952s. 11, s. 3, s. 5, s. 7, s. 8
Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955s. 51

Subjects

court feerequisitionacquisition of propertyarbitration awardmemorandum of appealad valorem feeorder definitionTamil Nadu Court Fees Act

Judgment

A

C.G. GHANSHAMDAS & ORS.
,
v.
COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

B SEPTEMBER 12, 1986

[E.S. VENKATARAMlAH AND V. KHALID, J.l.I

Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1955, s. 51 and
Article 3(iii) (A) ( 1) (a) of Schedule 11-Memorandum of Appeal u/s.
11 of Requisitioning Act, 1952-Court fee-Computation and payment
c of. '

Requisition & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, ss.
3, 5, 7-Requisition and acquisition of Property-Distinction between.

D Words & Phrases-'Order'-Meaning of.

The property of the appellants continued to remain under requisi-
tion by virtue of the several amendments made to the Requisitioning
and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 and the compensation
payable in respect of it was required to be revised for a period of 5 years
E from 7.3.75 to6.3.1980. As there was no agreement between the parties
on the question of compensation payable for the said period, the said
question was referred to an arbitrator under s. 8 of the Requisitioning "'t
Act to determine the compensation payable. The arbitrator by his
award fixed the compensation payable for the property at Rs.21,000
per month as against the claim of Rs. 77 ,270 per month made by the
r· appellants.

Aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator the appellants filed an
appeal before the High Court of Madras under s. 11 of the Requisition-
ing Act. The Registry of the High Court raised an objection regarding
the amount of court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. The matter
G was placed before the Division Bench of the High Court and it held that
the appellants were liable to pay court fee on the memorandum of
appeal under s. 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation
Act 1955 (for short, the Act) ad valorem on the amount of compensation
which was in dispute in the appeal.

H in appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the amount

754
C.G. GHANSHAMDAS v. COLL. OF MADRAS 755

of court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal filed under s. 11 of the A
·-1 Requisitioning Act should not be computed in accordance with s. 51 of
the Act as a fixed court fee was payable under the residuary provision,
that is, Art. 3 (iii) (A) (1) (a) of Schedule II of the Act. In support of this.
contention the appellants raised two points; (i) that since there is uo
transfer of title to the property which is requisitioned from its owuer to B
the Govermneut, the said trausactiou is uot au acquisition and heuce
·those provisions of the Requisitioning Act under which the property' is
requisitioned do uot constitute a law providing for acquisition of pro-
perty and therefore, s. 51 of the Act would not be applicable because it
relates only to appeals filed against an order relating to compensation
under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land; and
(ii) that the award made by the arbitrator wider s. 8 of the Requisition- ·C
ing Act not being an 'order' as defined in 'the Code of Civil Procedure
1908, the appellants cannot be called upon to pay court fee in accord-
ance with s. 51 of the Act since s. 51 refers to court fee payable on a
memorandum of appeal against an 'order'.
D
Dismissing the appeal,

HELD: 1. The appeal before the High Court filed under s. 11 of
the Requisitioning Act falls squarely under s. 51 of the Act. Theref9re,
the court fee has to be paid on ad valorem basis as provided in Art. 1 pf
Schedule I to the Act. It follows that the residuary Article, that is, Art.
E
3(iii) (A) (1) (a) of Schedule II to the Act is not attracted. [769E-F]

2(i) Section 3 of the Act states that in the Act 'unless .the context
otherwise requires' the words and expressions defined in that section
\ shall carry the meaning given to them in various cla.uses in that sec.. tion.
/'-·- It is relevant to note that in section 51 of the Act which arises for
' consideration the word 'order' does not appear in isolation. The section F
,..( states that the fee payable under the Act on a memorandum of appeal
against an order relating to compensation in any Act for the time being
in force for the acquisition of property for public purposes shall be
computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the
amount claimed by the appellants. The 'Order' referred to in s. 51 of
a
the Act need not be an 'order' of civil court as defined ins. 2(14) of the G
Code of Civil Procedure but shouid be an 'order' relating to compensa-
tion under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of
~\. property for public purposes. [768G-H; 769A-C]

2(ii) There is n() doubt that the award passed by the Arbitrator
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C. R.

A under the Requisitioning Act is a formal expression of a decision made
by a competent authority which is binding on the parties and it relates
to compensation payable under an Act for the time being in force for the
acquisition of property for the public purposes. Therefore, even though
the expression 'order' simpliciter has to be understood in the sense in
B which that expression is defined in s. 2 ( 14) of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure, the word 'order' found in s. 51 of the Act has to be read diffe-
rently having regard to the words which qualify that expression in that
section, namely, 'relating to compensation under any Act for the time
being in force for the acquisition of properties'. The said order need not
be an order of a civil court only. It can be of any statutory authority.
But it must determine compensation for a property acquired under a
c law of acquisition of property for public purpose. In the instant case,
the award made under s. 8 of the Requisitioning Act satisfies these tests.
[769C-E]

Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade v. Sp/. Deputy Collector, Ahmeda-
nagar & Anr., [1971] I S.C.R. 146, relied upon.
D
Y. Venkanna Choudhary v. Government of India, by Military
Estates Officer, Madras & Anr., AIR 1976 Madras 41, Lakshminar-
ayana Rao & Ors. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada & Ors.,
A.I.R. 1968 Andhra Pradesh 348, M. Ramachandran & Ors. v. State of
Madras represented by the Collector, Coimbatore, 87 Law Weekly
E Madras 791, Balakrishnan Nambiyar & Ors. v. Kanakathidathil
Madhavan & Ors., A.I.R. 1979 Kerala 40 & Ghouse Saheb v. Sharifa
Bi & Ors., A.I.R. 1977 Karnataka 181, approved.

Hirji Virji Jangbari v. Government of Bombay, A.I.R. 1945,
Bombay 348, Kanwar Jagat Bahadur Singh v. The Punjab State, -~
F Crown's case, A./.R. 1957 Punjab 32 Crown v. Chandrabhanlal and
Ors., AIR. 1957 Nagpur 8 and Mangal Sen v. Union of Indian A.I.R., ).
1970 Delhi 44, disapproved.

3(i) The expression 'acquisition' is not defined in the Act. Sec-
tions 3 to 6 of the Requisitioning Act deal with the powers of the
G Government in respect of requisitioning of property and section 7 of
that Act confers power on the Government to acquire a property which
has been requisitioned. Whenever a property is requisitioned by the
competent authority it is entitled to call upon the owner or any other )..
person who may be in possession of the property to surrender posses-
sion thereof to the Government. Section ·5 of the Requisitioning Act
H provides that all properties requisitioned under section 3 shall be used
C.G. GHANSHAMDAS v. COLL. OF MADRAS [VENKATARAMIAH,J.1757

for such purposes as may be mentioned in the notice of requisition. A
Such requisitioned property may be released from requisitioning under
section 6. The title to property requisitioned under the Requisition Act
continues to rest with the owner, the Government being entitled to only
the possession of such property. [76IB-E]
B
3(ii) Not only is a right to possession a right of property, but
where the subject of proprietary rights is a titngible thing, it is the most
characteristic and essential of those rights. Possession, it is said, is nine
points in law. An owner without possession has only a mere shell while
the person in posssession enjoys the property in many ways. In this
situation, \t is difficult to say that there cannot be deprivation of pro-
perty without deprivation of title also. Deprivation of possession for an c
indefinite period is acquisition of property during that period though
the title may continue to rest with the o"ivner. That is why the requisi-
tioning law also had to satisfy Art. 19(1) (f) and Art. 31 of the Constitu-
tion when they were in the Constitution. [764B-D I

3(iii) The Supreme Court has treated both requisitioning of pro- D
perty and acquisition of property as meaning the acquisition of pro-
perty in the large senSe and there is no re~son to depart from the views
expressed by. the two Constitution Benches of this Court in the State of
West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Ors,. 1954 S.C.R. 587 and
Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay v. The Sholapur Spinning & "'eaving
Co. Ltd. and Ors., [1954] S.C.R. 674. E

The Minister of State for the Army v. Dalziel, 68 C.L.R. 26 ! ,
referred to.

~- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil ·Appeal No. F
' 3040 of 1986

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.6.1985 of the Madras
High Court in S.R. No. 106081of1984.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Joel Peres and D.N. Mishra for the Appellants.
G
Abdul Khader, T.V. Ratnam and AV. Rangam for the Res-
pondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J. The short question which arises for H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986) 3 S.C.R.

A consideration in this appeal is whether under the Tamil Nadu Court-
Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') the court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal filed under
section l l of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Pro-
perty Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Requisi-
tioning Act') should be computed in accordance with section 51 of the
B
Act or a fixed court fee is payable under the residuary provision that is
Article 3 (iii) (A) (1) (a) of Schedule II to the Act.

The appellants claim to be the co-owners of the land and building
bearing Door No. 745 E.V.R. Periyar High Road (Poonamallee High
Road), Kilpauk, Madras. The land along with thi: building standing j_
c thereon was originally requisitioned under the provisions of the Re-
q'uisitioning Act for the purpose of accommodating the NCC Head-
quarters through the Collector of Madras. The above property was
taken possession of on 9.2.1963. In order to fix the compensation for
the period of five years beginning from 9 .6.1963 to 20.2.1967, an Ar- y
bitrator was appointed. The Arbitrator by his award dated 5.1.1970
.D fixed the compensation at Rs.6000 per month and the compensation
was being paid accordingly.

At this stage it is necessary to refer to the history of the Requisi-
tioning Act. The power to requisition and to acquire immovable pro-
perty for a public purpose was first provided in the Defence of India
E
Act, 1939 which expired on the 30th September, 1946. It was, however,
found necessary to retain some of the properties for a longer period in
the occupation of the Government. Therefore, it was provided in the
Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 that any pro-
perty which had been requisitioned under the Defence of India Act,
1939 would continue to remain under requisition. Subsequently, the
F Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 that
is the Requisitioning Act with which we are concerned in this case was
passed in the year 1952 to confer powers on the Government in this
regard. The Act was initially to operate for a period of six years but its
duration was extended from time to time. The Requisitioning and
Acquisition oflmmovable Property (Amendment) Act, 1970 made the
G Requisitioning Act a permanent measure but restricted the period for
which a requisitioned property could be retained under requisition to
three years from the commencement of the above said Amendment
Act in the case of properties requisitioned before such commencement
and in the case of any other property requisitioned after such com-
mencement to three years from the date on which possession of such
H
C.G. GHANSHAMDAS v. COLL. OF MADRAS [VENKATARAMJAH. J .1759

property was surrendered or delivered to or taken by the competent A
authority under section 4 of the Requisitioning Act. Thus properties
requisitioned before the commencement of the said Amendment Act
could be retained under requisition up to the 10th March 1973. A large
number of properties requisitioned under the Requisitioning Act
could not be rele.ased by the said date and the maximum period for B
which properties could be kept under continued requisition was ex-
tended for a further period of two years by the Requisitioning and
Acquisition Immovable Property (Amendment) Act, 1973. A number
of properties requisitioned under the Requisitioning Act were still in
possession of the Ministry of Defence and also some other Ministries.
Although the Government was expeditiously implementing the policy
of acquiring or de-requisitioning the requisitioned properties, a large c
number of them were expected to be needed by the Government even
after the 10th March, 1975 for. public purposes. On many of the pro-
per.ties valuable constructions of a permanent natun; connected with the
national defence or the ·Conduct of military operations or other im-
portant public purposes had been put up. Due to financial stringency,
D
it was not possible either to acquire the properties or take up large
scale construction programmes in the immediate future to enable the
Government to release the requisitioned properties. It was, therefore,
found necessary to keep the properties under the continued requisition
for a longer period. Parliament, therefore, passed the Requisitioning
and Acquisition of Immovable Property (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act
E
II of 1975) by which it amended the Requisitioning Act so as to extend
by five years the existing maximum period for which properties could
be retained under requisition and to provide for quinquennial revision
of the recurring part of compensation.

/
~-- The property in question by virtue of the several amendments
F
made to the Requisitioning Act continued to remain under requisition
and the compensation payable in respect of it was required to be
revised as provided by the Reguisitioning Act as amended by Act II of
1975 for a period of five years from 7.3.1975 to 6.3. 1980. As there was
no agreement between the parties on the question of compensation
G
·payable for the said period the said question was referred to the Princi,
·pal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras who had been appointed as the
arbitrator under section 8 of the Requisitioning Act to determine the
compensation payable in respect of the property in question for the
·Said period. The learned Arbitrator by his award dated August ·31,
1984 fixed the compensation payable for the property at Rs.21,000 per
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986) 3 S.C.R.

A month as against the claim of Rs. 77 .270 per month made by the
appellants.
'y

Aggrieved by the decision of the Arbitrator the appellants filed
an appeal before the High Court of Madras under section 11 of the
Requisitioning Act. On an objection raised by the Registry of the High
B Court regarding the amount of the court fee paid on the memorandum
of appeal the maiter was placed before a Division Bench of the High
Court of Madras for its decision. After hearing the learned counsel for
the appellants the High Court following its earlier decision in Y. Ven-

-
kanna Choudhary v. Government of India, by Military Estates Officer,
Madras & Anr., AIR 1976 Madras 41 held that the appellants were j
c liable to pay court fee on the memorandum of appeal under section 51
of the Act ad valorem on the amount of compensation. which was in
dispute in the appeal. The appellants have filed this appeal by special
leave against the said order of the High Court.

Section 51 of the Act which arises for consideration in this case
r
D reads thus:

"51. The fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of
appeal against an order relating to compensation under any
Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of pro-
perty for public purposes shall be computed on the differ-
E ence between the amount awarded and the amount claimed
by the appellant."

The corresponding provision in the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Cent-
ral Act VII of 1870) which was in force prior to the Act coming into
force in Tamil Nadu is section 8 of that Act. It reads thus: · -.(
F
"8. Fee on memorandum of appeal against order relating
to compensation.-The amount of fee payable under this
Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating
to compensation under any Act for the time being in force
for the acquisition of land for public purposes shall be com-
G puted according to the difference between the amount
awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant."

Two principal contentions are urged by the appellants in support
of this appeal. The first contention is that since there is no transfer of
title to the property which is requisitioned from its owner to the Go-
H
,

C.G. GHANSHAMDAS v. COLL. OF MADRAS [VENKATARAMIAH, J.]761

vernment, the said transaction is not an acquisition and hence those A
provisions of the Requisitioning Act under which the property is re-
quisitioned do not constitute a law providing for acquisition of pro-
perty. On the above basis it is urged that section 51 of the Act would not
be applicable because it relates only to appeals filed against a·n order
relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for B
the acquisition of land.

The expression 'acquisition' is not defined in the Act. We will
have to ascertain from the scheme of the Requisitioning Act whether

- an acquisition of property takes place when it is requisitioned under
the relevant provisions of the Requisitioning Act. Sections 3 to 6 of the
Requisitioning Act deal with the powers of the Government in respect
of requisitioning of property and section 7 of that Act confers power
c
on the Government to acquire a property which has been requisi-
tioned. Whenever a property is requisitioned by the competent au-
thority it is entitled to call upon the owner or any other person who
may be in possession of the property to surrender possession ther.eof to
D
the Government. Section 5 of the Requisitioning Act provides that all
properties requisitioned under section 3 shall be used for such
purposes as may be mentioned in the notice of requisition. Such re-
quisitioned property may be released froin requisitioning under sec-
tion 6. The title to the property continues to rest with the owner, the
Government being entitled to only the possession of such property.
E
In the State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Ors.,
[1954] S.C.R. 587, Patanjali Sastri CJ., has explained the meaning of

./-~the ·a::i::n:da:.:::i::t:::.~si~
\"'
'
word not a term of art, and it ordi-
narily means coming into possession of, obtaining, gaining
or getting as one's own. It is in this general sense that the
.•
F

word has been used in articles 9, 11 and 19(1) (f) and not as
implying any transfer or vesting of title ............. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . To say that acquisition implies the transfer
and vesting of title in the Government is to overlook the
real nature of the power of the State as a sovereign acting G
through its legislative and executive organs to appropriate
the property of a subject without his consent. When the
. .,.(• State chooses to exercise such power, it creates title in itself
rather than acquire it from the owner the nature and extent
of the title thus created depending on the purpose and
H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A duration of the use to which the property appropriated is
intended to be put as disclosed in the law authorising its
acquisition. No formula of vesting is necessary."

In Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay v. The Sholapur Spinning &
Weaving Co. Ltd. and Ors., [1954] S.C.R. 674 Mahajan, J. has
B observed at page 704 thus:

"In my judgment, the true concept of the expression "acquisi- ~·
lion" in our Constitution as well as in the Government of
India Act is the one enunciated by Rich J. and the majority of
the court in Dalziel's case. With great respect I am unable to .i _
accept the narrow view that "acquisition" necessarily means
c acquisition of title in whole or part of the property. It has
been rightly said that a close and literal construction of con-
stitutional provisions made for the security of person and pro-
perty deprives them of half their efficacy and ends in a gradual f'
depreciation of the right as if the right consisted more in
D sound than in substance. In other words, such provisions can-
not be construed merely by taking a dictionary in hand. The
word "acquisition" has quite a wide concept meaning the
procuring of property or ·the taking of it permanently or
temporarily. It does not necessarily imply the acquisition of
legal title by the State in the property taken possession of." ~

E In both the above decisions the learned Judges drew support for
their views from the decision of the High Court of Australia in The
Minister of State for the Army v. Dalziel, 68 C.L.R. 261. In that case
the High Court of Australia had to consider the scope of the legislative •
power with respect to acquisition of property conferred on the Com-
monwealth by section 51 (xxxi) of the Commonwealth of Australia · ....(_
F Constitution Act of 1900 including the power to take possession for
• indefinite period. In the said case the placitum of the Australian Con- ),.,
stitution which came up for consideration read like this:

"The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have
power to make laws for the peace, order, and good govern-
G ment of the Commonwealth with respect to-the acquisi-
tion of property on just terms from any State or person for
any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has ·power
to make law." >..
Rich, J. who was one of the Judges constituting the majority in
H that Bench observed:
C.G. GHANSHAMDAS v. COLL. OFMADRAS [VENKATARAMIAH. J.]763
A
"The language used is perfectly general. It says the acquisi~
tion of property. It is not restricted to acquisition by
particular methods or of particular types of interests, or to
particular types of property. It extends to any acquisition of
any interest in any property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But
there is nothing in the placitum to suggest that the legisla- B

.- nire was intended to be at liberty to free itself from the
restrictive provisions of the placitum by taking care to seize
something short of the whole bundle owned by the person
whom it was expropriating. . .................... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . It would, in my opinion, be wholly inconsis-

-. l .
tent with the language of the placitum to hold that, whilst
preventing the legislature from authorising the acquisition
. of citizen's full title except upon just terms, it leaves it open
to the legislature to seize possession and enjoy the full
c

fruits of possession, indefinitely, on any terms it chooses,
or upon no terms at all ....................... I am not
impressed by the argument sought to be based upon the D
fact that in the expropriation legislation of fully sovereign
legislatures a distinction is sometimes drawn between the·
permanent appropriation of property and the temporary as-
sumption of the possession of adjacent property for use
whilst works are being erected on the property which has
been permanently appropriated. It was pointed out that in E
such legislation the two types of appropriation are diffe-
~ently dealt with, and that different language has been used
to describe them by learned judges who have had occasion
to r,efer to them. This is no doubt so. . .............. .
But, with all respect. I fajl to see how the practice of such
legislatures or the language used by judges in referring to F
their legislation, throws any lighi upon the construction or
operation of placitum xxxi, occurring, as it does, in a Con-
stitution which confers powers which are both limited and
conditional."

The majority in that decision ultimately took the view that the G
taking under regulation 54 of the National Security (General) Regula~
lions by the Commonwealth for an indefinite period of the exclusive
possession of property constituted an acquisition of property within
the meaning of section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution.

""Possession in the Common Law" by Polloc!c and Wright (1888) H
764 'SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A says: 'So feeble and precarious was property without possession or
rather without possessory remedies, in the eyes of medieval lawyers,
that possession largely usurped not only the substance but the name of
the property ... , . , , , , , , , , , Possession confers more than personal
right to be protected against wrongdoers: it confers qualified right to
possess, a right in the nature of property which is valid against
B everyone who cannot show a prior or better title , , ..... , , , . , , , , ,
, , . , . Possession is a root of title.' Not only is a right to possession a
right of property, but where the object of proprietary rights is a tangi-
ble thing, it is the most characteristic and essential of those rights.
)
Possession, it is said, is nine points in law. An owner without posses-

c
sion has only a mere shell while the person in possession enjoys the
property in many ways. In this situation, it is difficult to say that there
)
cannot be deprivation of property withtmt deprivation of title also.
Deprivation of possession for an indefinite period is acquisition of
property during that period though the title may continue to rest with
the owner. That is why the requisitioning law also had to satisfy Article
19(1) (f) and Article 31 of the _Constitution when they were in the
D Constitution.

It is no doubt true that in India before the Constitution there
were two modes of depriving a person of immovable property in exer-
cise of the right of eminent domain of the State, namely, requisitioning
of property and acquisition of property and even after the Constitution
E came into force the same pattern of laws is continued to be maintained
but this Court has treated both requisitioning of property and acquisi-
tion of property as meaning the acquisitioh of property in the larger
sense and there is no reason to depart from the views expressed by the
two Constitution Benches of this Court referred to above. We do not,
therefore, find any substance in the argument that the requisitioning of
F property under the Requisitioning Act does not amount to acquisition
and the provisions contained in the said Act providing for the requisi-
tioning of property do not constitute a law relating to acquisition of
property referred to in section 51 of the Act. The first contention,
therefore, fails.

G The second contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that
the award made by the Arbitrator under section 8 of the Requisition-
ing Act not being an order as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 the appellants cannot be called upon to pay the court fee in
accordance with section 51 of the Act since section 51 of the Act refers
to court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against an 'order'.
H Elaborating the above contention the learned counsel for the appe-
C.G. GHANSHAMDAS v. COLL. OF MADRAS [VENKATARAMlAH, J.1765

llants submitted that the expression 'order' in section 51 of the Act can A
only mean an order as defined in section 2(14) of the Code of Civil
'f Procedure mview of section 3(iv) of the Act which provides that
'
expressions used and not defined in the Act or in the. Tamil Nadu
General Clauses Act, 1891 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1891), but defined in
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), shall have
the meanings respectively assigned to them in the said Code, and the B
expression 'order' is defined in section 2(14) of the Code as the formal
expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. It is
i . argued that since the Arbitrator appointed under section 8 of the
Requisitioning Act is not a Civil Court, the award passed by him

l cannot be termed as an 'order' bringing it within the mischief of sec-
tion 51 of the Act. Reliance is placed by the appellants in support of
the above contention on the decision of the High Court of Bombay in
c
Hirji Virji Jangbari v. Government of Bombay A.LR. 1945 Bombay
·348 which was a decision rendered on the basis of section 8 of the
Court Fees Act, 1870 which was in force in Bombay at that time and
-f which was more or less couched in the same language as section 51 of
the Act. We have already quoted above section 8 of the Court Fees D
Act, 1870. The Act corresponding to the Requisitioning Act, which
was under consideration by the High Court of Bombay in that decision
was the Defence of India Act, 1939. In that case under rule 75A of the
Defence of India Rules, 1939 framed under the Defence of India Act,
1939 a plot of land belonging to the claimant therein was acquired by
y the Government for and on behalf of the Defence authorities and as no E'
agreement could be arrived between the claimant and the Government
with regard to the amount of compensation payable, the Government
of Bombay appointed the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes as
an arbitrator under section 19(1) (b) of Defence of India Act, 1939
corresponding to section 8 of the Requisitioning Act, to determine the
- · amount of compensation payable to the claimant. The artibtrator fixed F
the amount payable to him at Rs.45,855. The claimant being dis-
satisfied with that amount filed an appeal in which he claimed a further
sum of Rs.47,896/8 in addition to the amount awarded to him by the
arbitrator. The question that arose in that case was whether the appe-
llant was liable to pay court fee on the memorandum of appeal ad
valorem, as required by section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 or G
whether he was liable to pay a fixed fee under Schedule II Article 11 of
the Court Fees Act, 1870. The learned Judge who decided the said
case held that the order of the arbitrator in that case being not a decree
... nor an order having the force of a decree and there being no provision
in section 19 of the Defence of India Act and the Rules made thereun-
der by which the awards made under that Act were deemed to be the H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A decrees, the award could not be treated as an order within the meaning
of section 8 of the Court Fees Act. The learned Judge, therefore, came '\
to the conclusion that a fixed court fee was payable under the re-
siduary Article 11 of Schedule II to the Court Fees Act, 1870. It was
brought to our notice that this decision had been followed in Crown v.
Chandrabhanlal and Ors., A.LR. 1957 Nagpur 8. We find that earlier
B to the above decision a contrary view had been taken by the Calcutta
High Court In re Ananda Lal Chakrabutty & Ors., A.LR. 1932
Calcutta 346. In that case Rankin CJ. who decided it observed thus: \
"Section 8, while not itself imposing any fee upon any one,
provides a rule for computation of the fee payable under j
c the Act in a certain class of cases. What it says is that, in the
class of cases, which it deals with, the amount of fee pay-
able under the Act on a memorandum of appeal, it is to be
computed according to the difference between the two
sums. Now, that section standing in the text of the Act
proceeds clearly upon the assumption that otherwise in the
D Act there is a charge which is a~ ad va/orem charge and is
not a fixed charge;

.......... The provisions of s. 8, involving as they do
that fee in the class of cases dealt with is an ad valorem fee,
are themselves sufficient to exclude any question of Article
E 11 of Schedule II being made applicable to such cases. It is
· not necessary to consider whether the Tribunal's award,
which is an order and not a decree, is an order having the
force of a decree. Whatever the effect of that phrase may

~
be, section 8 shows one perfectly clear that an appeal re-
garding compensation in a Land Acquisition case is not
F under Article 11 of Schedule II, because it is not a fixed fee
at all ............... "

In Satya Charan Sur v. State of West Bengal, A.1.R. 1959 Calcutta
609 the High Court of Calcutta while following the decision in Ananda
Lal Chakrabutty's case (supra) expressly dissented from the view ex-
G pressed in Hirji Virji Jangbari's case (supra). After the Bombay Court
Fees Act, 1959 came into force a similar question arose for considera-
tion in C.B.G. Trustv. Union of India, [1970] Bombay Law Reporter,
407, regarding the proper court fee payable on an appeal filed against
an award made under. the Requisitioning Act. In the Bombay Court
Fees Act, 1959 section 7(1) provided that the amount of fee payable
H
C.G. GHANSHAMDAS v. COLL. OF MADRAS [VENKATARAMIP<H. J.1767

under that Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating A
to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the
acquisition of land for public purposes should be computed according
to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount
claimed by the appellant. The language of that section was similar to
the language of section 51 of the Act and of section 8 of the Court Fees
B
Act, 1870. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bo.mbay, which
heard the said case held that the Court fee payable on the memo-
randum of appeal preferred against award made under section 8 of
the Requisitioning Act was as prescribed by Article 3 of Schedule 1
read with section 7(1) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. They.
disapproved the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hirji Virji
Jangbari's case (supra) and followed the decision of the Calcutta High c
Court in Ananda Lal Chakrabutty's case (supra). An identical ques-
tion came before ·this Court for consideration in Sahadu Gangaram
Bhagade v. Spl. Deputy Collector, Ahmedanagar & Anr., [1971] 1
---{ S.C.R. 146.-ln that case this Court approved the view expressed by the
Calcutta High Court in Ananda Lal Chakrabutty's case (supra) and in
D
C.B. G. Trust case (supra) and held thahthe contention that the award
made by the Arb(trator had no effect and, therefore, it could not be
considered as an order, was not acceptable. The Court proceeded to
hold that though the award was not an order as defined in the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 having- not been made by the Civil Court but
since the expression 'order' had not been defined in that Act, the
y award of the Arbitrator was undoubtedly a formal expression of a E
decision made by a compe.tent authority which was binding on the
parties tq the proceedings in which it was made. The learned counsel
for the appellants tried to distinguish this decision from the present
case on the ground that while the expression 'order' had not been
defined in the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 which arose for consi-
deration in the said decision, in the present case it had been defined as F
stated earlier by statir.ig in section ~(iv) of the Act that the expression
used and not defined in the Act, but. defined in the Code of Civil
Procedure should have the meaning respectively assigned to them in
the said Cbde, and in view of the above distinction the decision in
Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade's case (supra) would not go~em the pre-
sent case. We do not find much substance in the above contention. On G
carefully going through the decision of this Court in Sahadu Gangaram
. Bhagade's case (supra) we find that· the decision did not really turn
upon the presence or the absence of the definition of the word 'order'
- in the Bombay Court Fees ~c.t, 1959 although there is a reference to
this aspect of th~ matter in the course of the decision, The relevant
H
768 SUPRE~E COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C. R.

A part of the decision in Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade's case (supra) at
page 150 reads like thus:

"Section 11 provides for an appeal to the High Court
against the award made by the arbitrator. In the Act there
B is no provision similar to sub-section (2) of s. 26 of the· ...
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereunder every award made
by the Land Acquisition Officer is to be deemed to be a
decree of court. Therefore, the question whether the award ~ I
made under s. 8 of the Act is executable or not is a matter !""
that requires further consideratioin. For the present, we \

c
shall proceed on the basis that it is not executable. But
section 9 of the Act requires the competent authority to
j ....
pay the compensation awarded to the person or persons
entitled thereto. Therefore, we are unable to accept the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
award made by the arbitrator is something which has not
effect and therefore it cannot be considered as an order. It
D
is true that it is not an 'order' as defined in the Civil Proce-
dure 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
E is made. Therefore the question whether the order in ques-
tion is executable or not appears to us to be irrelevant for the
purpose of determining the point in issue."

(emphasis added)
F The portion of the judgment of this Court which has been under-
lined clearly brings out the effect of an award. This Court has held that
the award of the arbitrator is undoubtedly a formal expression of a
decision made by a competent authority. We are also of the view that
much reliance cannot be placed on the definition clause found in sec-
tion 3(iv) of the Act since the definitions given in that section have to
G be read subject to the context in which the expressions defined therein
appear in the Act. Section 3 of the Act states that in the Act 'unless the
context otherwise requires' the words and expressions defined in that
section shall carry the meaning given to them in various clauses in that
section. It is relevant to note that in section 51 ofihe Act which arises
for consideration before us the word 'order' does not appear in isola-
>-
H
C.G. GHANSHAMDAS v. COLL. OF MADRAS [VENKATARAMIAH. J.1769

tion. The section states that the fee payable under the Act on a A
memorandum of appeal against aiI order relating to compensation in
any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of property for
public purposes shall be computed on the difference between the
amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellants. The 'or-
der' referred to in section 51 of the Act need not therefore be an B
'order' of a civil court' as defined in section 2(14) of the Code of Civil
Procedure but should be an ~order' relating to compensation under any
Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of property· for
public purposes. There is no doubt that the award passed by the Ar-
bitrator under the Requisitioning Act is a formal expression of a deci-
sion made by a competent authority which is binding on the parties and
it relates to compensation payable under an Act for the time-being in c
force for the acquisition of property for the public purposes. Hence we
are of the view that even though the expression 'order' simpliciter has
to be understood in the sense in which that expression is defined in
section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the word 'order' found in
section 51 of the Act has to be read differently having regard to the
word which qualify that expression in that section, namely, 'relating to
0
compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisi-
tion of properties'. The said order need not be an order of a civil court
only. It can be of any statutory authority. But it must determine com-
pensation for a property acquired under a law of acquisition of pro-
perty for ·public purpose. The award made under section 8 of the Re-
E
quisitioning Act satisfies these tests. We do not, therefore, find any
substance in this contention too. Si~ce accon~ing to us the appeal
before the High Court filed under section 1r of the Requisitioning Act
falls squarely under section 51 of the Act, court fee has to be paid on
ad valorem basis as provided in Article I of Schedule I to the Act. It
follows that the residuary Article i.e. Article 3(iii)(A)(l)(a) of
Schedule II to the Act is not attracted. The High Court was right in F
following its earlier decision in Y. Venkanna Choudhary's case (supra)
and directing the appellants to pay court fee an ad valorem basis under
section 51 of the Act.

We may add that the decision in Srunguri Lakshminarayana Rao
&.Ors. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada & Ors., A.LR. 1968 G
Andhra Pradesh, _348 M. Ramachandran & Ors. v. State of Madras
represented by the Collector, Coimbatore, 87 Law Weekly Madras 791
Satya Charan Sur's case (supra), Balakrishnan Nambiyar & Ors. v.
' Kanakathidathil Madhavan & Ors., A.LR. 1979 Kerala 40 and Ghouse
Saheb v. Shari/a Bi & Ors., A.LR. 1977 Karnataka 181 hav_e taken the
same view as We have taken. H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C. R.

A The decisions in Hirji Virji Jangbari's case (supra), Kanwar Jagat
· Bahadur Singh v. The Punjab State, A.LR. 1957 Punjab 32, Crown's
case (supra) and Mangal Sen v. Union of India, A.LR. 1970 Delhi 44
are not approved by us.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. There shall, however, be no
B order as to cost~.

The appellants are granted three months' time to pay the deficit
court fee on the memorandum of appeal. •

M.L.A. Appeal dismissed.