UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH Vs. SARDARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but significant question of law that needs to be considered by this Bench on a reference is as follows: "How and in what manner a counsel's fee is to be assessed or quantified in the memo of costs while preparing a High Court decree inland acquisition matters in terms of Rule 7(ii), Chapter 4-H, Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders? It arises on the following facts:- In Regular first appeal No. 148 of 1980, filed by the union Territory of Chandigarh against the award of the Land Acquisition court on a reference under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the cross-objections filed by the petitioners were allowed by this Court on November 24, 1980, with proportionate costs. At the time of calculating the costs, the office, in accordance with the prevalent practice, put up the papers to the Judge to elicit his orders with regard to the quantum of counsel's fee. The learned counsel for claimant-petitioners then filed this miscellaneous petition raising an objection to this procedure being adopted and challenging it on various grounds.

(2.) The practice that is prevalent in this Court in this regard is that when a Regular first Appeal under the Act is decided by a learned single Judge the case goes back to the Branch for the preparation of the memo of costs. While preparing the memo of costs, the office submits the case to the learned Judge soliciting his orders with regard to the quantum of the counsel's fee to be added. This procedure is adopted in spite of the fact the counsel has put in his fee certificate on the court file. The fee so specified by the learned Judge is then added as counsel's fee in the memo of costs.

(3.) We are told that this procedure is adopted in view of Rule 8 of Chapter 6-I of Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders as the proceedings in the Land acquisition matters are treated as miscellaneous proceedings.