Holding

When an authority files a memorandum of appeal to avoid a higher compensation award under the Land Acquisition Act, it must pay ad valorem court fee under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Court Fees Act, computed on the difference between the awarded and claimed amounts.

Summary

The Indore Development Authority (IDA) acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a reference court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 88,000 per hectare. IDA filed a memorandum of appeal in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, paying the fixed court fee, but the High Court ordered it to pay an ad valorem fee under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1870. IDA contended that, as it was not a claimant, only the fixed fee prescribed in Article 11 of Schedule II should apply. The Supreme Court held that by seeking to avoid the higher compensation award, the authority is effectively challenging a decree and therefore must pay the ad valorem fee computed on the difference between the awarded and claimed amounts, rendering Section 8 applicable and Article 11 inapplicable. The Court dismissed the appeal, directing the authority to pay the deficit fee within two months and awarding no costs.

Issues considered

Does Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1870 apply to a memorandum of appeal filed by a land acquisition authority that is not a claimant?
Is the authority liable to pay an ad valorem court fee computed on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded and the amount claimed?
Is Article 11 of Schedule II of the Madhya Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1870 applicable to such appeals?

Legislation cited

Civil Procedure Code (CPC)s. 2(14), s. 2(2)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 19, s. 20, s. 22, s. 26(2), s. 3(d)
Madhya Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1870s. 8, s. Schedule II Article 11

Subjects

court feead valorem feeland acquisitionmemorandum of appealreference courtcompensationSection 8Madhya Pradesh Court Fees ActLand Acquisition Actdecreeappeal

Judgment

A INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
TARAK SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. l
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.

M.P. Cowt Fees Act, 1870 : Section fr-Schedule II-Article I I-Ap-
plicability of
D
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
(
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)

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. c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5645-46
of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.93 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in FA. No. 204 of 1993. D

f· 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 by the claimant regarding either the measurement of the
land or the amount of compensation. Thereafter, the Collector is obligated
to make the statement to the Court in the manner prescribed under s.19.
On receipt thereof, under s.20, the Court is to cause a notice served as
D mentioned therein. Under s.22, the Court conducts the proreedings as a
Civil Court. Sub-section (2) of s.2 of the CPC defines the decree and
s.2(14) of the Act defines 'order'.

This Court in C.G. Ghanshamdas & Ors. v. Collector of Madras, AIR
E (1987) SC 180, considering the scope of the appeal under s.11 of the
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (30 of 1952)
and the liability of the State to pay the Court f~e under s.51 of the Tamil
Nadu Court-fees Act, which is pari materia with 58 of the Act, considered
the controversy and held that the award of the arbitrator is a formal
F 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.
Therefore, the question whether the order in question is executable or not
appears to be irrelevant for the purpose of determining <he point on the
payment of court fee. On consideration of s. :1, of the Tamil Nadu Court
Fee Act and 2(2) and 2(14) of the CPC, this Court held that the order
G awarding compensation under the Act, is an order under s.2(14). When it
is sought to be assailed by filing appeal under s.51 of Tamil Nadu Court
Fee Act, the appellant is definitely seeking to avoid the compensation
awarded under the Act. Therefore, that is an order made by the statutory
authority. Accordingly, the appellants were required to pay ad valoram
H court fee on the value of the memorandum of appeal.
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTIIORITY v. TARAKSINGH 1103

The case on hand stands on a higher footings than the one dealt with A
,. ) in Ghanshyamdas's case. Here, the Subordinate Judge, who deals with the
reference, is a civil court under the Central Act to determine compensa-
tion. By operation of s.26(2}, his award is a decree within the meaning of
s.2(2) of CPC. It is a formal expression of an adjudication on the compen-
sation awardable or measurement of the land acquired under the Central B
Act. It is a final adjudication also, unless it can be avoided in any other
forum Known to law; and it could be avoided only by filing appeal as
prescribed in s.54 of the Central Act.

In this context, it is relevant to note s.8 of the M.P. Court Fees Act
which reads thus : c
"Fee on Memo of appeal against order relating to compensa-
tion:-

The amount of fee payable under this Act on a Memo of
Appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act D
for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public
~-· purpose shall be computed according to the difference between
the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant."

It is true the appellant is not the claimant. But when the appellant seeks E
to avoid 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. Therefore, the appellant is required io pay the Court fee on the
memorandum of appeal to the extent on which· the appellant seeks to avoid
the higher compensation awarded by the reference Court under the F
Central Act. When its legality is challenged by filing the appeal under s.54,
the difference of the amount for which appeal is filed, ad valoram court
fee under s.8 is required to b e paid. Article 11 of Schedule II has no
application, since it is expressly covered by s.8 of the M.f. Court fee Act.

The decision of this Court in Diwa'! Bros. v. Central Bank of India, G
Bombay, (1976) Suppl. SCR 664, relied on by Shri V.R. Reddy has no
application to the facts in this case. Therein, the Special Tribunal was
constituted and an application was to be made to the Tribunal for deter-
mination· of the disputes. In view of the specific language, this Court held
that the criteria prescribed under sub-section (2) of s.2 of the CPC has not H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A been satisfied. Therefore, the order is not a decree and the application is
not a plaint as required by CPC. Therefore, it was held that fixed court fee
was required to be paid on memorandum of appeal. But, as stated earlier,
since the Act has treated the Court under the Central Act as an established
Civil Court of original jurisdiction and conferred the power and jurisdiction
to determine conclusively the objection regarding the measurement or
B compensation or title to receive the compensation between the contesting
parties, it is a Civil Court under the CPC and the award of the Civil Court
is deemed under s.26(2) to be decree within the meaning of sub- section
{2) of s.2 of CPC.

C So, the appellants are required to pay ad valoram court fee. The
appellants are granted two months' time from today for payment of the
deficit court fee. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

T.NA. Appeals disposed of.

. .