ACHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two Civil Misc. Appeals the Office has raised an objection that the appellant head opt affixed the court fees Under Section 46 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act' here in after). The appeals have been presented on a court fee stamps of Rs. 10/ - only whereas Under Section 46 of the Act fee is required to be paid on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant.

(2.) MR . S.L. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that on a reference made to the Civil Judge, Pali, by the Collector, Pali, the Civil Judge has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 200/ - per bigha agreeing with the Land Acquisition Officer and has stated that the claimants are not entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ - per bigha. Similarly in respect of the claims on other heads the Civil Judge found that the claimants are not entitled to the amount claimed and whatever amount has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is sufficient. It would appear from the judgment of the learned Civil Judge that he agreed with what has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and claims were not allowed. Against this judgment or decision of the learned Civil Judge, Pali, these appeals have been preferred.

(3.) THE Full Bench in vie of the aforesaid observations held that the appeal Under Section 147 of the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act following a decision given Under Section 78 of the same Act ad valorem court -fees on the difference between the amount claimed and the amount awarded is not required to be paid. The court -fees payable on such appeals will be under Article 11 in Schedule II of the Court -Fees Act. It may be mentioned that Section 8 of the Central Court Fees Act 1870 although has been referred in the judgment but its impact has not been considered. In Diwan Brother's case the Supreme Court has not considered the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Central Court Fees Act, 1970. That was a case considering the nature of the decision given by the Tribunal constituted under the Displaced Persons (Debte Adjustment) Act. In my opinion, the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court cannot be pressed into service in the present appeals.