VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the Appellant would press before us the contentions that no court fee is payable. The Appellant filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Appellant is awarded compensation. Not being satisfied, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The original valuation made by the Appellant was about Rs. 29 lakhs and the officer took the stand that the Appellant is liable to pay court fee on ad valorem basis computed as per the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Appellant did not pay the amount. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Appellant carried the matter in appeal before the Apex Court. In the Apex Court the Appellant has limited the claim to Rs. 5 lakhs. According to the Appellant, the Appellant was permitted to remit the court fee payable and the Apex Court has directed that the court fee paid in that Court shall be treated as the court fee paid in this Court. Later on, the Apex Court has disposed of the appeal and permitted, according to the Appellant, to urge the question of court fee before this Court. It is accordingly that the Appellant urges that no court fee is payable in the land acquisition appeal.

(2.) We heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant Sri. K.G. Balasubramanian and learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) Sri. K.G. Balasubramanian, learned Counsel would contend as follows: The Act does not specifically provide for any court fee in an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. He would contend that Section 52 of the Act deals with the court fee to be paid in an appeal. He would contend that on a reference application under Section 18, no court fee is payable by virtue of the exemption granted under Section 72 of the Act. If that be so, he poses the question how in an appeal carried against an award on the reference any court fee is payable in view of the express provisions of Section 52 of the Act. In regard to Section 51, he would that it is a dead letter. Apart from saying that, the court fee payable shall be the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed it does not expressly charge the Appellant with liability to pay any court fee, he contends. When confronted with the Full Bench decision of this Court in Balakrishnan Nambiyar Madhavan and Ors., 1978 KLT 843 (F.B.) and the Bench decision in LA.A. No. 8 of 2003 the Appellant would canvass the correctness of the judgments and he would request us to revisit the whole issue on the basis that the view taken by the Full Bench and also by the Division Bench is erroneous. According to him, the error committed by the Full Bench lay in not noting the distinction between the provisions of the Court-fees Act, 1870 and the provisions of the Act. According to him, in the Court-fees Act, 1870, there was a charging provision and the entire reasoning of the learned Judge in In re Ananda Lal Chakrabutty and Ors. , AIR 1932 Cal. 346 which is followed with approval by the Full Bench in, 1978 KLT 843 (F.B.) (supra) turned on the provisions contained in the Court-fees Act, 1870. He reiterates that in the Act there is no charging provision charging the Appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act with liability to pay court fee ad valorem.