LAXMIKANT D NAIK KARMALI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Writ Petition No. 676/2009, Rule was issued on 19th January, 2010 and in Writ Petition No. 409/2010, Rule was issued on 7th July, 2010. The issue involved is common and, therefore, the petitions are taken up together for final disposal. The main prayer in the both the petitions is for issuing a writ for striking down Article 3 of Schedule I-A inserted by the Court-fees (Goa Amendment) Act, 1997 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Amendment Act of 1997") and Article 2-A of Schedule I inserted by the Court-fees (First Goa, Daman and Diu Amendment) Act, 1970 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Amendment Act of 1970"). It is contended that the aforesaid Articles are repugnant to Section 19(xxii) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act of 1870").

(2.) As far as Writ Petition No.409/2010 is concerned, the petitioners therein filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act"). On 8th April, 2010, the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a communication to the petitioners directing the petitioners to affix prescribed court-fees on the application under Section 18 of the said Act, as per the provisions of the said Act of 1870. It is stated in the communication that the District Court has declined to receive the reference application in the absence of the prescribed court-fees. It appears that the petitioners had invited attention of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kashi Ram Namdeo Zambro vs. State of Maharashtra, ((1996) 1 SCC 289). The prayer in Writ Petition No.409/2010 is for quashing the communication dated 8th April, 2010 containing a direction for payment of court-fees.

(3.) In Writ Petition No.676/2009, the petitioners made an application under Section 18 of the said Act. A reference was made to the District Court on the basis of the said application. An application was made by the petitioners before the District Court contending that they were not liable to pay the court-fees. By an order dated 21st June, 2003, the said application was rejected by the learned District Judge. Thereafter, the petitioners paid the court-fees under protest. A writ petition was filed in this Court by the petitioners for challenging the said order of the District Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition for challenging the amendments made by the Amendment Act of 1997 and the Amendment Act of 1970. Accordingly, there is a prayer in the writ petition for refund of the court-fees.