... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO.442 OF 2003 1. Shri Laxmikant D. Naik Karmali, son of late Damu Datta Naik Karmali, 64 years of age, Civil Engineer, resident of near Joaquim Chapel, Borda, P.O. Fatorda, Margao, Goa. 403 602 2. Shri Bhaskar D. Naik Karmali, son of late Damu Datta Naik Karmali, 62 years of age, businessman, resident of Cacora, P.O. Curchorem, Goa, 403 706 3. Shri Narendra D. Naik Karmali, son of late Damu Datta Naik Karmali, 58 years of age, medical practitioner, resident of Cacora, P.O. Curchorem, Goa, 403 706 represented herein by his Power of attorney holder, petitioner no.1. … Petitioners. v e r s u s 1. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 403 001 ... 2 ... 2. The Deputy Collector, Sub-Divisional Officer, Quepem, Goa. 3. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XVIII (Roads-Central) Public Works Department, Ponda, Goa. … Respondents Mr. P. A. Kholkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. G. Bhonsule, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: SHRI B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & SHRI U. D. SALVI, JJ DATE: 9TH JULY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT:(PER DHARMADHIKARI, J) The matter was heard yesterday and was adjourned to today for further consideration. The challenge is to 1997 Amendment effected by Government of Goa to Court Fees Act 1870 (Central Enactment). By the said amendment Schedule I and Schedule II of that Enactment as in force in the State of Goa have been substituted by Schedule I-A. The petitioner is ... 3 ... aggrieved by Article 3 of this Schedule I-A which requires him to pay 50% of ad valorem court fee on his reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is pointing out the provisions of Section 19 ((xxii) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 to show that as per the said Enactment and provisions, such application is not chargeable to any court fees. The argument is without amending Central Enactment, the State Government could not have added an inconsistent provision with said Section 19 (xxii) by 1997 Enactment. Learned counsel contends that in view of this apparent conflict in provisions of Central Enactment and State Amendment, the Central Enactment has to prevail and the provisions requiring the petitioner to pay court fees inserted by Schedule I-A by the State needs to be quashed and set aside. He further states that in order to avoid delay, though the petitioner has paid the requisite court fees on his reference application, the same was without prejudice to his ... 4 ... rights in the matter. The learned counsel wants us to consider certain judgments which he wishes to cite in support of his arguments. 3. Learned Advocate General has pointed out that the provisions for payment of court fees on applications under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made way back in 1970 when Goa was Union Territory by amending the provisions of Schedule I of Central Court Fees Act 1870. He points out that there is no challenge to that amendment in the present petition and according to him by 1997 amendment, the said charging provision (relevant in this petition) has only been re-numbered. He states that what has been amended in 1997 is not the original schedule with the Court Fees Act 1870 but the schedule as in force in the State of Goa. 4. After hearing both the counsel, we find that 1970 State Amendment has not been questioned in the present writ petition. It is admitted position that in 1970 Goa was an Union ... 5 ... Territory and it has attained Statehood in 1987. Thus 1970 amendment to Schedule I was obviously with the accent of the President of India. The said amendment becomes the law of the land after attaining Statehood and in so far as charging provisions is concerned, if it is only re-numbered the petitioner cannot make any grievance only against 1997 State amendment. It is apparent that the entry in relation to court fees is covered in list 2 i.e. concurrent list of VIIth Schedule of Constitution of India and if the petitioner wants to assail the levy of court fees he has to raise proper challenge. Advocate Mr. Kholkar is seeking time to amend the present writ petition appropriately. However, this writ petition is at the stage of final hearing and pending for the last more than five years. In the circumstances, instead of permitting the petitioner to amend the present petition, we permit him to file fresh petition in accordance with law, if he so desires as we find that all the relevant questions are not appropriately raised in this writ petition and necessary material is not placed on record. We ... 6 ... dispose of this petition without making any observations on merits and leaving the petitioner at liberty as mentioned above. Rule discharged. No costs. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J U. D. SALVI, J lh/.