SAHADU GANGARAM BHAGADE Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AHMEDNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave, appears to have been brought as a test case. It arises from one of the l16 cross-objections filed in an appeal brought by the Special Deputy Collector, Ahmednagar to the High Court of Maharashtra, under section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an award made by the arbitrator under S. 8 (1) of that Act. The controversy in this appeal is as to the relevant provision of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 under which the court-fee is payable on the claim made in the memorandum of cross-objection. According to the appellant on the claim in question a fixed court-fee of Rs. 5 is payable under Art. 13 of Sch. II of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959 but according to the State ad valorem court-fee is payable on that claim in question either under Art. 1 or Art. 3 of Sch. I of that Act. The High Court has come to the conclusion that on the claim made by the appellant ad valorem court-fee is payable under Art. 3 of Sch. I of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959. The appellant challenges that conclusion.

(2.) Lands belonging to the appellant and several others situate in Taluka Parmar, District Ahmednagar were requisitioned on March 10, 1944. Thereafter they were acquired on September 22, 1957 under the provisions of the Act. In respect of the said acquisition, the appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 12,173/49 P. as compensation but the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered him only Rupees 3,033/59 P. In view of this difference, the matter was referred to the arbitrator as provided in S. 8 (1) (b) of the Act. The arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 5,980/55 P. As against that award, the Special Deputy Collector went up in appeal to the High Court of Maharashtra. The appellant filed a cross-objection claiming an additional compensation of Rs. 3323/93 P. On that claim he paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 5. The Taxing Officer assessed the Court-fee payable at Rs. 250 and demanded the appellant to pay an additional Court-fee of Rs. 245. The appellant's revision to the High Court was summarily dismissed. Thereafter this appeal was brought.

(3.) It was urged by Mr. S. V. Gupte, learned Counsel for the appellant that the High Court was in error in holding that the Court-fee in respect of the claim made by his client is payable under Article 3 of Schedule I and not under Article 13 of Sch. II of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959. According to him Article 3 of Sch. I applies only to plaint, application or petition (including memorandum of appeal) to set aside or modify any award made by a civil court. The arbitrator appointed under Section 8 of the Act is not a civil court:he is only a tribunal. Therefore an appeal against his order comes within Article 13 of Schedule II. The learned Counsel for the Special Deputy Collector on the other hand contended that the appropriate Article under which the court-fee is payable is either Art. 3 or Art. 1 of Sch I. In support of his contention he placed great deal of reliance on S. 7 (1) of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959.