Surendra Pal Singh vs State of U.P.& Anr.

This is an appeal by claimant under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as Act). Short question is whether ad valorem courtfee as provided in Schedule I Article 1 of the Courtfee is payable or the same is payable under Schedule II Article 11 of the Courtfees Act.

In a decision of learned Single Judge reported in 1965 ALJ p. 909 Bagh Raj v. Ram Ratan, it has already been laid down that on the memorandum of appeal claiming differential amount of compensation ad valorem Courtfee is payable under Article 1 Schedule I of the Courtfee Act. In view of this decision which is binding on the Taxing Officer, there was no scope for any reference on the question of Courtfee. However, on a reference made by the Taxing Officer, appropriate bench hearing First Appeal has been nominated in absence of a Taxing Judge. Thus, we are to examine question of payment of Courtfee payable on the memorandum of appeal.

Land of appellant was requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act. Therefore, it was compulsorily acquired. Compensation was offered at a rate which was not accepted by appellant who was demanding compensation at higher rate. In that view, an arbitrator was appointed as provided under the Act who made an award determining the prevailing market price. Appellant not being satisfied with the award, has preferred this appeal for getting higher compensation.

Under Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, Court shall not receive a document on which proper fee as provided in Schedule I or Schedule II is not paid. Memorandum of appeal being a document proper fee is payable. Under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, it is clarified that amount of lee payable in memorandum of appeal in an appeal relating to compensation for acquisition of land under any Act is to be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. Question is whether advalorem Courtfee is payable under Article 1 Schedule I or fee as provided under Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is payable, since it is not disputed that in case Schedule 11 Article 11 is not attracted, residuary provision in Schedule I Article 1 would be attracted.

Sri Yatindra Singh, learned counsel for appellant submitted that an award by Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act is neither a decree nor is an order having force of a decree. Therefore, Article 11 Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is directly attracted and Article 1 of Schedule I which is a residuary provision has no application.

Reading Article 11 Schedule II it is clear that the provision relates to memorandum of appeal which is not against a decree or order not having a force of decree. ''Decree'' is defined in Code of Civil Procedure. As has been held in AIR 1976 SC 1503 (Dewan Brothers v. Central Bank Bombay) a decree is a formal expression of adjudication in suit in a Civil or Revenue Court. Order which has not force of a decree gets its meaning from the meaning of a decree. With development of Law, many adjudicating authorities were created under different statutes and proceedings before them are not suits in Civil Court or Revenue Court. Some statutes provide the decisions to have force of decree or deemed to be decree. In those statutes, the adjudicating authorities also pass orders against which right of appeal is created though they may not have force of decree. Schedule II Article 11 of Court Fees Act deal with memorandum of appeal which are against order which do not challenge decree or orders not having force of decree. This article cannot have wide scope. In any case, award of an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition Act is not covered under Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act.

Section 8 of the Court Fees Act provides for fee on memorandum of appeal relating to compensation for acquisition of land under any Act. It, however, provides that the memorandum of appeal is to be against an order. Uttar Pradesh Legislature found that award under the Town Improvement Act of the State or similar Acts may not be ''order'' to come within the scope of Section 8 of the Court Fees Act. Therefore, it specifically provided in Section 8 that awards as stated above would also be covered under Section 8.

Section 8 of the Court Fees Act does not provide for the amount of court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. It has to be read alongwith Section 4 of the Court Fees Act which provides that no document, document of any of the kinds specified in Schedules I or II of the Act shall be received in High Court. Memorandum of appeal is one such document. As provided in Section 8, Court Fees Act is to be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and amount claimed.

Schedule II Article 11 of the Court Fees Act as amended in Uttar Pradesh does not call for any computation of courtfees as the same provides for fixed courtfees on memorandum of appeals filed in High Court. Thus, this provision is not attracted where computation of Courtfees is required.

Once Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act is not attracted, the only other provision applicable is in Article 1 Scheduled I of the Court Fees Act, Perusal of the provision also makes it clear that Courtfees payable thereunder is to be computed according to value of the appeal.

Court Fees Act being a fiscal statute, interpretation of its provision is to be rigid. Equity or sympathy has no role to play in its interpretation. As in any other Statute, Court is not to leave out any word or add any word for interpreting a statute. Where two interpretations are possible, the one which is in favour of the person called upon to pay, in any fiscal statute is to be favoured. Where, however, meaning is clear by considering effect of the various relevant provisions together, there is no scope for two meantings. We have indicated, how Schedule II Article 11 of the Court Fees Act is not attracted. Therefore, appellant cannot take advantage of the said provision. Conclusion in 1965 ALJ 909 (supra) that ad valorem Court is payable on memorandum of appeal against award under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 which has governed the field in Uttar Pradesh since 381965 is correct and is hereby confirmed.

In the decision reported in AIR 1971 SC 1807 Sahadu Gangaram Bhagade v. Special Deputy Collector, Ahmendnagar and another, Supreme Court considered the question of payment of Courtfees on memorandum of appeal against award under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, with reference to provisions in the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, and held ad valorem Courtfee is payable. Though the provisions are different, we also come to the same conclusion by examination of provisions of Court Fees Act which are prevailing in Uttar Pradesh.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, appellant is to pay ad valorem CourtFee on the memorandum of appeal. We grant three months time to pay the deficit Courtfee.