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.