ABDUL RAHAMAN SHARIFF Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ petitions are filed by the claimants under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, assailing the constitutional validity of Section 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (shortly called 'the act') to declare that Section 48 of the act as void ab initio or as violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners under articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and at all events repugnant and contrary to the declaration of law laid down by the Supreme Court in p. m. "ashwathanarayana Setty and others v State of Karnataka and others.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that all the petitioners in these petitions are claimants under the Land Acquisition Act. Their lands were acquired under the act (act No. 1 of 1894 ). The petitioners sought a reference to the civil court as the compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer is not adequate. The reference court passed awards, after considering the material evidence on record and again appeals are preferred under Section 54 of the l. a. act. The registry has insisted payment of ad valorem court fee on the enhanced amount claimed in the appeals, as per Section 48 of the act. Aggrieved by that Order, the present writ petitions are filed questioning the constitutional validity of Section 48 and schedule I of the act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the lands are acquired by virtue of the Provisions of the l. a. act. The process of determination of compensation starts from the time of award enquiry to find out the market value of the land. If the person, whose land is acquired, is not satisfied with the award of the deputy commissioner, he can seek for a reference to the civil court and in some cases by further appeal to the high court and Supreme Court. So the entire process, i. e. , the award by the deputy commissioner and after reference enquiry by the civil court and consideration of the appeal by the high court by act No. 1 of 1894 are part and parcel of the determination of the market value of the land. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the claimants need not pay any court fee before the land acquisition officer or before the civil court in reference; whereas, they are obligated to pay court fee, in an appeal filed in the high court, as per Section 48 of the act. The state has got an obligation to pay the market value as the lands are acquired by the state under the power of eminent domain. To determine, what is the proper market value, the claimants, or some times the government or beneficiaries, approach this court after reference. Section 54 of the l. a. act provides that subject to the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, an appeal shall lie from the award or from any part of the award, of the court in any proceedings under the act to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decision of that court. Therefore, the charging of court fee under Section 48 of the act and for an appeal filed under act No. 1 of 1894 is not a fair and just procedure and therefore, it is violative of Article 21 and Article 300-a of the constitution. There is no us between the parties in the land acquisition proceedings as it is not adversorial procedure. The State Acts as a parent to acquire the land and to give compensation. The payment of just compensation is an obligation under the statute. The l. a. act is though expropriatory legislation to the extent of payment of compensation to the claimants, it is a beneficial legislation. Therefore, the requirement of payment of court fee at the stage of appeal is arbitrary and not fair. The court fee is payable only by the claimants; whereas the government and the beneficiaries are not liable to pay any court fee. Therefore, the provision is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution. The act of the state to pay just compensation and the determination of the market value under the act is inquisit to find out, what is just compensation. The appeal is also a part and parcel of the process to find out, what is just compensation. Therefore, no court fee need be charged on such appeals. The state has got power to exempt the payment of court fee on the appeals filed by the government, but it has not exempted the payment of court fee as far as claimants are concerned and therefore the same is violative of Article 14 payment of just compensation does not amount to a service under the scheme of the act. Therefore, levying the court fee on the appeals to determine the compensation amounts to levying tax and therefore, it is unconstitutional. The high court and the Supreme Court time and again held that the payment of solatium and interest and additional amounts are payable as a statutory obligation, apart from the market value of the land acquired and on such amounts no court fee is to be paid. After the judgment of the full bench of this court holding that no court fee is chargeable on the solatium, interest and other amounts, the explanation in Section 48 of the act is incorporated including the solatium, interest and other amounts paid under the act as the amount awarded or claimed, is contrary to the judgment of this court; so the explanation has to be struck down as unconstitutional. The requirement of payment of court fee is denying the poor claimants to approach this court, which amounts to denying approach to the court to seek justice. Therefore, it is violative of Article 39-a of the Constitution and the same is liable to be struck down.