KAPOOR CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which we have to consider is whether the court-fee payable in this appeal is governed by Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court-fees Act or by Article 17(i) of Schedule II of the Act.

(2.) The brief facts which are essential for a proper determination of the matter are that the former State of Bharatpur had granted a lease in favour of the plaintiffs for quarrying Ballast from the hills in Roopwas Tehsil for a period of five years commencing from 1-6-1945 on a royalty of Rs. 32,000/- payable in quarterly instalments of Rs. 1,600/- each, subject to certain conditions. The lessees appeared to have failed to pay the stipulated amount and the quarterly instalments fell in arrears. On 24-9-1946, the then Government of Bharatpur terminated the lease and directed the lease to be re-auctioned, and the deficiency, if any, to be realised from the plaintiffs according to the terms of the agreement. The plaintiffs then offered to pay ail the arrears due with interest at 9 per cent per annum and prayed to the then Government that their lease be continued, which offer was accepted by the Government. It appears that the lessees paid the arrears for some time and thereafter again defaulted with the result that the lease was again cancelled by the Government. In the meantime, the State of Bharatpur merged in the State of Matsya Union. The remaining period of the lease was reauctioned in favour of the highest bidder at the rate of Rs. 3,700/ per annum. The Government of Rajasthan which ultimately succeeded to the former State of Bharatpur, then issued notice to the plaintiffs demanding payment of Rs. 16,406/6 which, according to them, remained unpaid out of the original sum or Rs. 32,000/- and when the plaintiffs did not satisfy the demand, a certificate under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act (No. V of 1952) was issued for recovering the same. In the certificate proceedings, it appears that the plaintiffs objected to the issue of the certificate, but could not obtain any relief; and eventually, they instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the certificate issued against them under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act should be declared void and ineffective. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs paid ad valorem court-fee on the amount for which the certificate had been issued against them. In this Court, Mr. Rastogi contends that ad valorem court-fee is not payable on the memo of appeal, but that a fixed court-fee under Schedule II Article 17(i) is the requisite court-fee payable which he has affixed on the memorandum of appeal. The office has objected to the amount of court-fee paid and accordingly, the matter has been laid before us.

(3.) It is obvious from the relief claimed in ike suit that although the relief has been framed as if in a suit for declaration; but. in substance, the suit is for cancellation of the certificate which has been issued against the plaintiffs. Under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, on receipt of any requisition for a public demand referred to in Section 3, the Collector, if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable under the Act and that its recovery is not barred by any law for the time being in force, may sign a certificate to that effect in the prescribed form specifying the amount of the demand and the account on which it is due. A notice of the certificate is to be served upon the defaulter and then under Section 8 of the Act, the defaulter is authorized within the period of limitation mentioned therein to present to the Collector a petition denying his liability in whole or in part. The Collector then forwards such a petition to the officer or authority charged with the realisation of the public demand for disposal and the section also provides that the officer or authority shall then hear and determine the petition and communicate the result to the Collector. The Collector on that communication, may set aside, modify or vary the certificate, if necessary, in accordance therewith. Section 9 of the Act further provides that the Collector in whose office the certificate is originally filed, shall determine a petition presented under Section 3 if it proceeds on the ground that the demand is not recoverable under this Act or that its recovery is barred by any law for the time being in force. It is clear from these provisions that the Collector is entitled to determine two matters, viz., whether the demand is recoverable under the Act and whether its recovery is barred by any law tot the time being in force; but so far as the quantum of the amount recoverable is concerned, or where the amount is not payable at all, the matter, on receipt of an objection under Section S of the Act) has to be decided by the officer or authority, who issued the requisition and then the Collector has to vary or modify the certificate in accordance with the decision of that officer. Now, under Section 20 of the Act, the defaulter has been authorised to institute a suit to have the certificate cancelled or modified or for any further consequential relief to which he may be entitled, and in the suit it may be also determined that nothing was due to him on account of the public demand or that the amount due was less than that stated in the certificate. In other words, the entire certificate proceeding is subject to the result of the suit under Section 20 of the Act and any decision given either by the requisitioning authority Or by the Collector in issuing the certificate does not conclude the matter and is not final between the parties. The decision is more or less of a summary nature. Under Section 4 of the Act prima facie the Collector has to make up his mind whether the amount mentioned in the requisition is recoverable as a public demand and is not barred by any law of limitation, and when an objection is filed under Section 8 of the Act, he determines these very points in the presence of the objector: while with regard to the quantum of the amount payable, the matter is determined by the requisitioning authority and the Collector adjusts the certificate in accordance with his decision. The order of the requisitioning authority does not stand by itself, but it merges in the order of the Collector, when he varies or modifies the certificate accordingly. But all this is subject to the result of the suit under Section 20 and is open to challenge by the person affected, in the suit instituted tor the purpose. It is, therefore, contended by Mr. Rastogi that the case is governed by Article 17(i) of Schedule II of the Court- fees Act.