Pittala Lachavva vs Deddeti Venkataiah and Others

G. Rohini, J.—The matter is listed before us for orders on the following objections raised by the office:

1) Please mention correct provision of law in the grounds copy and wherever necessary.

2) Please pay the deficient court fee, if any.

3) Please clarify and state as to how this appeal is entertainable u/s 54 of LA Act against decree and Judgment dated 22.04.2013 in LAOP No. 35 of 2010 in view of judgment of Division Bench i.e. Motte Rajaram Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Another,

The said LAOP was filed u/s 30 of LA Act.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is preferred u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirsilla in LAOP No. 35 of 2010 on a reference made u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") in view of the dispute between the claimants i.e., the appellant and the respondents 1& 2 herein as to the title of the land acquired.

Though the value of the appeal is shown as Rs. 18,98,700/- i.e., the value of the land acquired, the appellant paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 300/-.

Therefore the above noticed objections are raised by the office both as to the maintainability of the appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and with regard to the fixed court fee paid.

The question with regard to the maintainability of the appeal against the order on a reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act where no amount is awarded to the claimant as well as the court fee payable on such appeal has already been considered by this Court. In A.S.SR. No. 105642 of 1981 (A.S. No. 1804 of 1988) it was held by a Division Bench by order dated 05.08.1983 that Section 47 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short "A.P. Court Fees Act") alone is attracted to the cases where compensation is totally denied on the ground of absence of title and thus the fixed court fees shall be paid. Relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A. Mahalinga Kudumban and Others Vs. Theetharappa Mudaliar, ) it was held by this Court that in such circumstances Section 48 of the A.P. Court Fees Act and Schedule I Article 1(c) prescribing advalorem court fees do not apply.

Relying upon the very same decision of the Madras High Court in Mahalinga Kudumban''s case (1 Supra) it was held in a later decision in Motte Rajaram Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Another, that any decision rendered by the competent Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be necessarily dealt with or guided by the procedure prescribed under the CPC and therefore an appeal lies to the competent Civil Court u/s 96 of C.P.C.

Thus, it is clear that advalorem court fees is payable u/s 48 of the A.P. Court Fees Act only in appeals where enhancement of compensation is claimed, but where the claim of the appellant was rejected by the reference Court in toto, fixed court fees is payable as provided u/s 47.

In the case on hand, the appellant is one of the claimants with respect to the compensation awarded in the land acquisition proceedings. On a reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act the Civil Court held that the appellant is not entitled to receive any compensation. Therefore the appellant''s claim in the present appeal squarely falls u/s 47 of the A.P. Court Fees Act and consequently fixed court fees is payable.

For the aforesaid reasons, Office Objection Nos. 1 and 3 with regard to the maintainability of the appeal are upheld. Insofar as Office Objection No. 2 is concerned, in view of the law laid down in the above said decisions, the fixed Court Fee of Rs. 300/- u/s 47 of the A.P. Court Fees Act has been rightly paid and therefore the said objection is overruled. The appellant is hereby permitted to convert the appeal as a regular appeal u/s 96 C.P.C. within two weeks from today.