SURENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by claimant under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as Act ). Short question is whether ad valorem court-fee as provided in Schedule I Article 1 of the Court-fee is payable or the same is payable under Schedule II Article 11 of the Court-fees Act.

(2.) IN a decision of learned Single Judge reported in 1965 ALJ p. 909 Bagh Raj v. Ram Ratan, it has already been laid down that on the memorandum of appeal claiming differential amount of compensation ad valorem Court-fee is payable under Article 1 Schedule I of the Court-fee Act. IN view of this decision which is binding on the Taxing Officer, there was no scope for any reference on the question of Court- fee. However, on a reference made by the Taxing Officer, appropriate bench hearing First Appeal has been nominated in absence of a Taxing Judge. Thus, we are to examine question of payment of Court- fee payable on the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) SRI Yatindra Singh, learned counsel for appellant submitted that an award by Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act is neither a decree nor is an order having force of a decree. Therefore, Article 11 Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is directly attracted and Article 1 of Schedule I which is a residuary provision has no application.