PURSHOTAM DASS Vs. JAISHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandi Camp at Dharamsala in a land reference No. 50 of 1971 made to him under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. By his order under appeal the learned Additional District Judge has apportioned the compensation for acquisition of the land in dispute between the present appellant and the respondent on the basis that the respondent is a non-occupancy tenant over the acquired land. The appellant claims that the respondent is not holding any non-occupancy tenancy right in the land and the whole of the compensation should have been awarded to him without any apportionment. The office took objection as regard the court-fee paid by the appellant in this appeal. The appellant has paid Court-fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 13 (hi) of the Second Schedule attached to the Hima-chal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 8 of 1958. The office objection is that the appellant is liable to pay an ad valorem Court-fee under Article 1 of the First Schedule to this Act as read with Section 8 thereof. This objection as regards the Court-fee came up for consideration before my learned brother who after hearing the learned advocates of the parties has made this reference in view of the conflicting decisions on the question. The question which is referred to the larger Bench is as under :--

(2.) It is obvious that the dispute between the parties is as regards the apportionment of the compensation which is to be awarded for the acquisition of the land in question. The Second Schedule of the Himachal Pradesh Court- fees Act is under Section 3 of the said Act, and Article 13 (iii) thereof states that in case of a plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit to obtain a declaratory decree, where no consequential relief is prayed, a fixed court-fee of Rs. 19.50 is required to be paid. The contention of the appellant is that it is this Article 13 (iii) which is applicable to the facts of this case because the appellant's claim is in fact for a declaration as to the status of the parties. It is contended that the learned District Judge has made the apportionment in question after accepting the respondent's claim that he is entitled to the rights of an occupancy tenant in the land. This question obviously involves the determination, of the status of both the contesting parties with respect to the acquired land, and since the stand of the appellant is that he is the sole owner of the acquired land and as such he is entitled to the whole amount of compensation without any apportionment, his claim eventually amounts to obtaining a declaration as regards his status. If this claim about the appellant's status is eventually allowed by the Court, then the award of the whole amount of the compensation in his favour would be merely a necessary consequence of this declaration and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the matter falls within the provisions of Article 13 (iii) of the Second Schedule which requires a fixed court-fee of Rs. 19.50. It is thus contended on behalf of the appellant that the court-fees paid in this appeal are proper.

(3.) As against this, the contention of the respondent as also of the learned Advocate-General, who has appeared on behalf of the State, is that Article 13 (iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act has no relevance to the facts of this case because the matter is governed purely by Section 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Court-fees Act which is in the following terms :--