1986 (9) TMI 409 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms ad valorem court fee rule on appeal, appellants given 3 months to pay.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming that court fee must be paid on an ad valorem basis under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation ... - Issues Involved:1. Computation of court fee under the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.2. Definition and implications of 'acquisition' under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.3. Applicability of Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.4. Interpretation of the term 'order' in the context of court fees.Detailed Analysis:1. Computation of Court Fee:The primary issue was whether the court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal filed under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 should be computed in accordance with Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 or a fixed court fee is payable under the residuary provision, Article 3 (iii) (A) (1) (a) of Schedule II to the Act. The High Court of Madras had previously held that the appellants were liable to pay court fee on the memorandum of appeal under Section 51 of the Act ad valorem on the amount of compensation in dispute.2. Definition and Implications of 'Acquisition':The appellants contended that since there is no transfer of title to the property requisitioned from its owner to the Government, the transaction does not constitute an acquisition. Therefore, provisions of the Requisitioning Act do not constitute a law providing for the acquisition of property, and Section 51 of the Act would not be applicable. The court examined the scheme of the Requisitioning Act and concluded that requisitioning of property under the Act amounts to acquisition in the larger sense. The court referred to the definitions and interpretations of 'acquisition' in previous judgments, including those by the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of India, which supported the view that acquisition includes the taking of possession for an indefinite period.3. Applicability of Section 51:Section 51 of the Act states that the fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the acquisition of property for public purposes shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. The court held that the requisitioning of property under the Requisitioning Act constitutes a law relating to the acquisition of property, thus making Section 51 applicable. The court dismissed the argument that requisitioning does not amount to acquisition and upheld the High Court's decision that court fee should be paid ad valorem.4. Interpretation of the Term 'Order':The appellants argued that the award made by the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Requisitioning Act is not an 'order' as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and therefore, Section 51 of the Act should not apply. The court noted that while the term 'order' in Section 51 of the Act should be understood in the context of the Act, it need not be limited to orders of civil courts. The court referenced previous judgments, including Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade v. Spl. Deputy Collector, Ahmedanagar, which held that an award by an arbitrator is a formal expression of a decision by a competent authority and is binding on the parties. The court concluded that the award under the Requisitioning Act qualifies as an 'order' relating to compensation under an Act for the acquisition of property, thus falling within the scope of Section 51.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the High Court's decision that the appellants must pay court fee on an ad valorem basis under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The appellants were granted three months to pay the deficit court fee on the memorandum of appeal.