F.A. No.92 of 2006 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. MCC No.212 of 2008 (Misc. application) Shri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kamlesh Lohani, learned counsel for the appellants/ applicants. Shri Dinesh Gahtori, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent no.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present application has been filed by the appellants for refunding the court fee deposited by them at the time of filing of the appeal. The appeal was heard and was allowed by this Court. This Court set aside the award made by the Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and remitted the matter to the District Judge to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observation made in the judgment. The judgment was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.17710 of 2008 with connected appeals. The SLP’s filed by the respondents were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.02.2011. Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate referred to Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which is being reproduced below: “ 1 3 . Refu n d of fee paid on m em or an du m of appeal- If an appeal or plaint, which has been rejected by the lower Court on any of the grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure, is ordered to be received, or if a suit is remanded in appeal on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 351 of the same Code for a second decision by the lower Court, the Appellate Court shall grant to the appellant a certificate authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal: Provided that if, in the case of a remand in appeal, the order of remand shall not cover the whole of the subject-matter of the suit, the certificate so granted shall not authorize the appellant to receive back more than so much fee as would have been originally payable on the part or parts of such subject-matter in respect whereof the suit has been remanded.” He argued that in view of this clear-cut provision, fee deposited by the appellants deserves to be refunded. Learned Standing Counsel for the State fairly conceded this fact. In view of the above, the Misc. application is allowed. The Collector, Haridwar is directed to refund the court fee to the appellants in accordance with law. ( V.K. Bist , J.) Arpan 09.06.2011