UNION OF INDIA Vs. GIRDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the court-fee payable on a Memorandum of Appeal under S. 11 of the Punjab Requisitioning and acquisition of Immovable Property Act. 1953, has to be ad valorem in accordance with S. 8 read with Sch. I, art. 1 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, or is a fixed one under Sch. II, Art. 11 of the said Act is the pristinely legal question which falls for determination before full Bench. More pointedly at issue is the correctness of the Division Bench judgment, (in this context) in Kanwar Jagat Bahadur Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 Punj 32.

(2.) IN view of the purely legal nature of the question, it is indeed unnecessary and wasteful to advert to the facts. It suffices to say that there is a patent discordance of judicial opinion with regard to the court-fee payable on a Memorandum of Appeal under Section 11 of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). in two Single Bench judgments of this Court in C. M. No. 2091-C-II-81 in F. A. O. No. 269 of 1979 (Kanwaljit Singh v. State of Punjab), decided on Sept. 3, 1979; and, F. A. O. No. 185 of 1980 (Maha Singh v. State of Haryana through Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon as Arbitrator), decided on Dec. 15, 1980. The issue has, therefore, been pointedly raised with regard to the court-fee payable on Cross-objections No. 36 of 1981 in F. A. O. No. 466 of 1980. (Union of India v. Girdhari Lal), and the matter has been placed before this Full Bench for an authoritative decision.

(3.) IT appears to me that for once the strict discipline of the doctrine of precedents cuts the Gordian Knot of controversy cleanly in this context. The issue is now clinched by a binding precedent of the final Court. This obviates any consideration on first principles and even on the language of the statute because I am inclined to take the view that the ratio of Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade v. Special Duty Controller, Ahmedabad, AIR 1971 SC 1887, now squarely governs the issue and it, therefore, suffices to indicate how the same is clearly and inexecrably applicable in the present case as well.