(1.) THE questions have been referred for opinion by the Taxing Officer (i) whether ad valorem court-fee is payable on the memo of appeal filed under section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, and (ii)whether the appeal is to be registered as a regular appeal or as miscellaneous appeal.
(2.) AGAINST the award of compensation of Rs. 2,92,48,604. 50 p. /- of the arbitrator under section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable property Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Union of India has preferred this appeal and paid Court-fee stamp worth Rs. 8. 86,460/ -. The Office had taken an objection that only miscellaneous appeal lies against the award and not a regular appeal as has been preferred by the appellant. Therefore, this Court asked the taxing Officer to examine the matter with reference to the decision of the Supreme court in S. C. Bhagada vs. Spl. Dy. Collector, Ahmednagar AIR 1971 SC 1887. The taxing Officer in his report has opined that under section 8 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, a rule has been provided for computing ad-valorem court-fee payable on a memo of appeal against an order relating to grant of compensation, although this section itself is not a charging section as has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The Supreme Court has further held that it is not necessary for application of the section that the order under appeal should have the force of a decree. The Taxing Officer has also opined that it has to be registered as a regular appeal because appeals under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act are registered as regular appeals.
(3.) UNDER section 8 of the Court-fees Act the amount of fee payable on memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public purposes, shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. This means that in any appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act, ad valorem court-fee is payable on the amount under challenge and there is direct decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case which further provided that a cross-objection filed by the respondent in an appeal is a memorandum of appeal in substance though not in form and ad valorem Court-fee is payable. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that ad valorem Court-fee is payable under section 11 of the Act and proper Court-fee has been paid by the appellant.