Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KASHI RAM NAMDEO ZAMBRO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT31/10/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
KIRPAL B.N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 289 JT 1995 (8) 157
1995 SCALE (6)303
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 [for short, ’the Act] was published in the State
Gazette on January 16, 1975, acquiring certain extent of
land part of which land belonged to the appellant for
construction of ’Panzar Talaw’. The Collector made his award
under Section 11 on November 15, 1977. Notice of award as
required under Section 12 was served on the appellant on
November 17, 1977. On an objection raised, the appellant
made good the deficit court-fee. Thereafter the Collector
made the reference to the Civil Court. During the reference
proceedings, the counsel appearing for the State raised a
preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the
reference which was upheld since requisite court-fee was not
paid within the limitation of six weeks from the date of the
receipt of the notice of the award, as required under clause
(b) of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 18. On appeal,
the High Court upheld the contention by judgment dated 27th
to 29th April, 1982 and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Thus this appeal by special leave against the decree of the
Bombay High Court.
The only question that arises for consideration is
whether the claimant is required to pay court-fee on an
application seeking reference under Section 18. We are at a
loss to understand that a claimant is required to pay ad
valoram court fee on an amount awarded by the Collector
under Section 11 for seeking reference under Section 18.
What is required is to make a written application with
particulars envisaged under Section 18(2) of the Act, to the
Collector requiring the matter to be referred to civil Court
to decide his objection regarding measurement of the land or
the amount of compensation or the person to whom it is
payable or the apportionment of the compensation awarded to
the persons interested. The Act is a self-contained Code and
it does not speak of payment of any court-fee. It requires
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
only that the application should be made within the
limitation prescribed either in clause (a) or (b) of Sub-
section (2) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that non-
payment of the deficit court-fee, though wrongly made by the
appellant, is not a necessary. The owner or person
interested is not enjoined under law to pay any court-fee on
the application made under Section 18(1) seeking reference
for determination of the compensation by the civil court
etc. The civil court and the High Court, therefore, have
committed grave error of law in rejecting the claim of the
appellant for determination of the compensation.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of
courts below stand set aside. The Civil Court shall now
proceed to determine the compensation according to law. No
costs.