KALI GOFAL CHATTEBJEE Vs. T BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This fiscal matter has been referred to me, for final decision, under section 5 of the Court-Fees Act 7 of 1870.

(2.) The facts which have led up to this reference need not be referred to further than as follows : The Special Land Acquisition Judge, 24-Parganas, seized of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1394, rejects the claim of the appellant to the entire sum of Rs. 23,912.37 paise, the compensation, awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, for compulsory acquisition, for public purpose, of a certain land in mouza Basudevpore, within the jurisdiction of Baranagar Police Station. The claim, so rejected, was on the foot of a purchase from one Harinandan Ram, said to be in possession of the acquisitioned land, as an under-raiyat. Hence the appeal, valued at Rs. 23,912,37 paise, but stamped with a court fee of Rs. 5 only. The Stamp Reporter, an officer whose duty it is to see that proper fee is paid, insists on ad valorem court fees under schedule 1 to the Court Fees Act. That comes to Rs. 1,320 minus Rs, 5 put in already. The appellant contends however that a fixed court fee is leviable under schedule II, article 11, prescribing a fee of Rs. 5, when the appeal is not from a decree or art order having the force of a decree, or, at best, under article 17(iii), prescribing a fee of Rs. 20, when the object of the memorandum of appeal is to obtain a declaratory decree, with no prayer for a consequential relief.

(3.) Herein lies the difference between the Stamp Reporter and the appellant.