SHANTILAL SOGANMAL Vs. TOWN IMPROVEMENT TRUST RATLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 147 of the Madhya Pradesh Town improvement Trust Act, 1960, When the matter was placed before a learned single Judge, the question arose whether the court-fee paid on the appeal was adequate. Court-fee of Rs. 30 has been paid and not ad valorem court-fee. In suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, 1975 Jab LJ 468 : (AIR 1975 Madh Pra 189), the Hon'ble Taxing Judge (Raina J.) held that on such appeal ad valorem court-fee is payable on the difference between the compensation claimed and the compensation awarded. Since the learned single judge thought that in view of certain other decisions of the Nagpur High Court and the Bombay High Court and since the decision in Sahadu Gangaram bhagade v. Special Deputy Collector, Ahmednagar, (1970) 1 SCC 685 : (AIR 1971 SC 1887) did not decide the above question, he referred the matter to be decided by the Larger Bench, i. e. how the matter has come up before us.

(2.) THE decision of Raina, J. was rendered and the reference by the learned single Judge was made prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Diwan brothers v. Central Bank of India, Bombay (AIR 1976 SC 1603) on going through which we are of the opinion that on the basis of that authority the point referred to us must be held to have been settled. Section 8 of the Court-Fees Act reads thus: "section 8. The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the requisition of land for public purposes, shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. " article 11 in Schedule 2, Court-Fees Act, provides as follows: "art. 11. (a) When presented Seven memorandum of to the High Court. rupees and appeal when the fifty Paise appeal is not from a decree or an order having the force of a decree. (b)When presented Three to a Civil Court rupees. other than the high Court

(3.) THE crux of the matter is whether a decision rendered under Section 78 of the M. P. Improvement Trust Act, 1960, is an order having the force of a decree for the purposes of Article 11 in Schedule 2 of the Court-Fees Act.