Case Note & Summary
The appeal by special leave arose from a land acquisition dispute under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant owned part of the land notified for acquisition for the construction of 'Panzar Talaw'. The State of Maharashtra was the respondent. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on January 16, 1975. The Collector made his award under Section 11 on November 15, 1977, and notice of the award under Section 12 was served on the appellant on November 17, 1977. The appellant sought a reference under Section 18 challenging the amount of compensation, measurement of land, or the person to whom compensation was payable. The Collector made the reference to the civil court. During the reference proceedings, counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection that the reference was not maintainable because the requisite court-fee had not been paid within the limitation of six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice of award, as required under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. The civil court upheld this objection and dismissed the reference. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal by judgment dated 27th to 29th April, 1982. The only question before the Supreme Court was whether a claimant is required to pay court-fee on an application seeking reference under Section 18. The appellant contended that no court-fee was required under the Act; the State argued that non-payment within limitation made the reference invalid. The Supreme Court observed that the Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained Code and does not speak of payment of any court-fee. What is required under Section 18(2) is only a written application with the necessary particulars, to be made within the limitation prescribed in clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (2). Non-payment of deficit court-fee, though wrongly made by the appellant, was not necessary. The owner or person interested is not enjoined under law to pay any court-fee on an application made under Section 18(1) seeking reference for determination of compensation. The civil court and the High Court committed a grave error of law in rejecting the appellant's claim. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the courts below, and directed the civil court to proceed to determine the compensation according to law. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference Under Section 18 - No Court-Fee Payable - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4(1), 11, 12, 18(1), 18(2) - The Collector made an award under Section 11 and reference was sought under Section 18 to challenge compensation. The civil court dismissed the reference on a preliminary objection that deficit court-fee was not paid within six weeks from receipt of notice of award under Section 18(2)(b) proviso. The Supreme Court held that the Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained Code and does not require payment of any court-fee for an application under Section 18(1); only a written application with particulars within the prescribed limitation under clauses (a) or (b) of Section 18(2) is necessary. Non-payment of deficit court-fee is not a necessary condition for a valid reference. Accordingly, the orders of the civil court and High Court were set aside and the civil court directed to determine compensation according to law. Held that the owner or person interested is not enjoined under law to pay any court-fee on the application made under Section 18(1) (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimant is required to pay court-fee on an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; orders of civil court and High Court set aside; civil court shall proceed to determine compensation according to law; no costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 is a self-contained code
- no court-fee is required on an application under Section 18(1) seeking reference
- only a written application with particulars within limitation under Section 18(2)(a) or (b) is necessary
- non-payment of deficit court-fee is not a necessary condition
- civil court and High Court erred in rejecting claim for determination of compensation
