IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14391 of 2009(T) -------------------------- LAR.242/2007 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL TRAVANCORE LIMITED, UDYOGAMANDAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, K.V. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUMARAN, S/O. VALLAN, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL, ELOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.5.2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 14395 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28/05/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos.14391, 14395, 14417, 14418, 14419, 14420 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT “C.R.” What, if any, is the court fee payable on an application for review of judgment in re an award by Court under the Land Acquisition Act? Facts: On its requisition, lands were acquired for the petitioners’ purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short, the “LA Act”. Compensation payable on that account, to certain persons under awards of the Collector, were sought to be re-determined under Sub-section 2 of Section 28A of that Act. On applications under section 28A (3), those matters were referred for the determination of the Court. The references were answered by the Court, enhancing the compensation. Petitioners applied for review of the WPC.14391/09 & con. Cases Page numbers judgments resulting in those awards but insisted that no court fee is payable on those applications for review. The court below over-ruled that, sustaining the objections by its office. Such common decision in different matters is under challenge in this bunch of writ petitions. Reasoning in the impugned order: An application for compensation and an application of review are different. The applications for review filed by the petitioners are not exempted from levy of fee under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, for short, the “CF Act”, but are chargeable with the proper court fee payable in terms of Article 5 in Schedule I of that Act. Contentions of the petitioner and arguments on its behalf: Be it an Award on a reference under Section 18 or under Section 28A (3) of the LA Act, it is only a decision on an WPC.14391/09 & con. Cases Page numbers application for compensation, which is exempted under Section 72 (xviii) of the CF Act, from levy of any fee under that Act and therefore, an application for review of such a decision is also not chargeable with court fee and that a liberal construction of the fiscal legislation is called for. Resolution of the issues: 1. Article 5 of Schedule I of the CF Act provides that the proper fee payable on “Application for review of judgment” is one-half of the fee payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal comprising the relief sought for in the application for review. The fee payable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal is to be determined on the basis of the proper fee chargeable on those documents in terms of Article 1 of Schedule I of the CF Act. The determination of the fee payable on an application for review of judgment is thus, not made dependent on the fee chargeable on the instrument by WPC.14391/09 & con. Cases Page numbers which the proceedings, from which the application for review arises, is instituted, say, a plaint or a memorandum of appeal or revision or even a petition or an application filed initiating any original proceeding. Therefore, the determination of the court fee payable on an application for review of judgment is to be determined solely on the basis of the valuation of the relief sought for in the application for review. 2. What is ‘judgment’ for the purpose of an “Application for review of judgment” referable to an Award under the LA Act? By virtue of the last limb of Section 28A(3) of the LA Act, the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, as far as may be, apply to such reference as they may apply to a reference under section 18. Therefore, the effect of awards on references under Sections 18 and 28A (3) maintains no difference. Section 26 (2) of the LA Act provides that every award shall be deemed to WPC.14391/09 & con. Cases Page numbers be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award, a judgment within the meaning of clauses 2 and 9 of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the statement of the grounds of every award under the LA Act is a judgment for the purpose of CPC. By virtue of the deeming provision in Section 26 (2) of the LA Act, an Award under the LA Act, on a reference either under Section 18 or under Section 28A (3), is deemed to be a decree as defined in Section 2 (2) of CPC and the reasons for such decree constitute ‘judgment’ for the purpose of Section 2 (9) of CPC. Awards by Courts on references under Section 30 of the LA Act, on the question of apportionment, are also governed by the same principle. 3. The term ‘judgment’, though occurs in Article 5 of Schedule I of the CF Act, is not defined in that Act. But, Section 3(iv) of the CF Act provides, inter-alia, WPC.14391/09 & con. Cases Page numbers that expressions used and not defined in that Act, but defined in CPC, shall have the meaning assigned to that expression in CPC. Applying the law as enunciated in the preceding paragraph, to wit, that the reasons stated in an award under the LA Act, for its making, constitute the judgment of that award, an “Application for review of judgment” in relation to an award under the LA Act, is chargeable with court fee for such application in terms of Article 5 of Schedule I of the CF Act. 4. Therefore, an application for review of the judgment in relation to an award under the LA Act, be it under Section 18; 28A (3) or 30, is chargeable with court fee as prescribed in Article 5 of Schedule I of the CF Act. 5. No other view being available in the matter, there is no question of the court leaning in favour of an WPC.14391/09 & con. Cases Page numbers interpretation beneficial to the person obliged to pay the court fee. In the result, the impugned common order calls for no interference. The challenge fails. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.