Punjab State vs H.H. Raja Sir Harinder singh

A.D. Koshal, J.—This application for refund of excess court-fee paid on the Memorandum of appeal in Regular First Appeal No. 205 of 1964 has arisen in the following circumstances. In the year 1966 the erstwhile State of Punjab acquired 70 acres 3 kanals and 1 marla of land situated in the revenue estate of Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon, for a Corporation, namely, Good Year (India) Limited. Out of this land, Raja Harinder Singh, who is the sole Respondent in the said appeal, owned an area of 22 acres 4 kanals 11 marlas. As a result of the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector, the ''compensation for the land was assessed at Rs. 3,850/- per acre which was enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per acre by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon,aggrieved by whose judgment the Punjab State filed the above-mentioned appeal in which the land in dispute was only that of which the Respondent was the owner and for which the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation by Rs. 1,34,500/-. It was the amount last mentioned, therefore, on which ad-valorem court-fee amounting to Rs. 3,661 60 was payable on the memorandum of appeal. By a mistake however, the Appellant calculated the court-fee on the sum of Rs. 429,000/- which was the total amount awarded by the learned Additional District Judge over and above that assessed by the Collector on the whole of the land acquired, i.e., 70 acres 3 kanals 1 marla. This Court-fee was worked out to Rs. 6,500/- and was actually paid on the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court although it should have been no more than Rs. 3,661,60, calculated according to the relief claimed which embraced the enhanced compensation made payable by the learned Additional District Judge to the Respondent only. The Appellant State (now the State of Haryana by reason of the provisions of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966), who is the applicant before me, prays that the court-fee amounting to Rs. 2,838,40 paid on the memorandum of appeal in excess by mistake be refunded.

Although there is no specific provision in the Court-fees Act which empowers the Court to order refund in circumstances such as those detailed above, the Court can grant the necessary refund ex debito justitiae and declare that any particular plaint or memorandum of appeal was over-valued, leaving the matter to the revenue authorities for the grant of a refund in accordance with the declaration given by the Court Harihar Guru v. Ananda Mahanty I.L.R 40 Cal 365., Chaudra Hari Singh and Others Vs. Tipan Prosad Singh and Others, and In re In Re: Vedaranyaswami Devasthanam,

I may state here that a notice of the matter was issued to the Taxing Officer who has not cared to put in appearance.

Holding the Appellant to be entitled to get back the excess court-fee of Rs. 2,838.40, I direct the Taxing Officer to issue the necessary certificate to enable the Appellant to apply to the revenue authorities to obtain a refund thereof.