Sahadev Singh, Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Punjab State - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||First Appeal No. 20 of 1955 treated as First Appeal No. 50 of 1956|
|Judge|| Harnam Singh, J.|
|Reported in||AIR1957P& H222|
|Acts||Court-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 8 - Schedule - Article 11; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 54|
|Appellant||Sahadev Singh, Rajeshwar Singh|
|Appellant Advocate|| H.R. Sodhi, Adv.|
|Respondent Advocate|| S.M. Sikri, Adv. General|
|Cases Referred||Punjab Province v. Dhian Singh|
.....[as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution.
- , observed :in the case of an order of an arbitrator appointed to determine the amount of compensation under section 19 of the defence of india act there is no provision in the act laying..........himself on ganesh das v. khanthu, air 1935 lah 448 (a), mr. sarv mittar sikri urges that on the memorandum of appeal ad valorem court-fee is leviable.2. section 26(2) of the land acquisition act, 1894, provides that every award given under the act shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2, clause (2). and section 2, clause (9), respectively of the code of civil procedure. 1908.3. mr. hans raj sodhi maintains that the memorandum of appeal was liable to a court-fee of rs. 4 under article 11 of schedule of the court-fees act. ' for authority on this point reference is made to punjab province v. dhian singh,' 1955-57 pun lr 14 (b).4. in 1955-57 pun lr 14 at p. 17 (b), teja singh j., observed :'in the case.....
Harnam Singh, J.
1. Basing himself on Ganesh Das v. Khanthu, AIR 1935 Lah 448 (A), Mr. Sarv Mittar Sikri urges that on the memorandum of appeal ad valorem court-fee is leviable.
2. Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides that every award given under the Act shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a Judgment within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (2). and Section 2, Clause (9), respectively of the Code Of Civil Procedure. 1908.
3. Mr. Hans Raj Sodhi maintains that the memorandum of appeal was liable to a court-fee of Rs. 4 under Article 11 of Schedule of the Court-fees Act. ' For authority on this point reference is made to Punjab Province v. Dhian Singh,' 1955-57 Pun LR 14 (B).
4. In 1955-57 Pun LR 14 at p. 17 (B), Teja Singh J., observed :
'In the case of an order of an arbitrator appointed to determine the amount Of compensation under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act there is no provision in the Act laying down that it can be executed like a decree or that it can be enforced otherwise.'
5. In 1955-57 Pun LR 14 (B), the point that arose for. decision Was the proper court-fee to be paid on memorandum of appeal from ah order of the arbitrator under the Defence of India Act.
6. In my judgment, on the memorandum of appeal in the present case ad valorem court- fee is leviable.
7. In these circumstances I order the appellant to make up the deficiency in court-fee within two months from today.