JAYKISAN PANNALAL MALPANI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above matter reference has been made to this Court under section 113 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Taxing Officer.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the above reference, briefly, are as follows:

(3.) The above First Appeal Stamp No.5284 of 1997 has been preferred by the appellant under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking to challenge the Award and judgment of the Civil Court in Land Reference No.154 of 1988. The Award of Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was declared on 10-10-1996. Being aggrieved, the above first appeal has been filed on 25-2-1997. The office while examining the matter, raised an objection regarding deficiency in Court Fees as per the Maharashtra Ordinance No.VIII of 1997, amending the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1950. The said Ordinance came into force from 21-2-1997. Subsequently, the said Ordinance has been substituted by the Amending Act entitled Bombay Court Fees Amendment Act, 1997. According to the said Amendment Act the Court Fees payable by the Appellant is Rs. 30,950/-. According to the Appellant, the said Amendment Act, 1997 did not operate retrospectively and hence the appellant objected to the Court Fees being charged in the sum of Rs. 30,950/-. Accordingly, the matter was put up by the office before the Taxing Officer who heard the Counsel for the appellant on 9-10-1997. During the course of the argument before the Taxing Officer, the appellant showed his willingness to pay the remaining half of the Court Fees of Rs. 7,500/- for the Claim of Rs. 24,62,400/- as per the old unamended schedule under the Bombay Court Fees Act. Accordingly, the appellant has paid the remaining half of the Court Fees of Rs. 7,500/- on the claim. After hearing the Counsel for the appellant, the Taxing Officer has referred the matter to this Court to decide the question as to whether the said Bombay Court Fees Amending Ordinance, 1997 operated retrospectively or whether the said Ordinance operated only prospectively.