-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 60 OF 2004 Dr. Antonio Philip Do Rosario Pinto alias Dr. Antonio Filipe de Rosario Pintoi alias Dr. Tony Pinto, major, through his Constituted Attorney, Fr. Virginio Gomes, our Lady of Rosary Chapel, House No.251, Cavota, Loutolim, Salcete, Goa. …... Petitioner V e r s u s State of Goa, Through the Secretary (Revenue), Government of Goa, with his office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. …... Respondent Coram :- D. G. KARNIK F. M. REIS, JJ. Date : 8 th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per F. M. Reis, J.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent. 2. The short point involved for consideration in the above Appeal is as to whether the Petitioner is entitled for a declaration that the Court-fees (First Goa, Daman and Diu Amendment) Act, 1970, in so far as it introduced Article 2A in Schedule-I, after Article 2 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, providing for payment of court-fees on an application to the Collector, for a reference to the Court under -2- Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Court-fees (Goa Amendment) Act, 1997, in so far as it IA to the Court-fees Act, 1870, providing for payment of Court-fees on an application made to the Collector for reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. 3. The point involved in the above Petition is no longer res-integra as the Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 16.08.2010, passed in Writ Petition no. 676/2009 and 409/2010, has held at Paras 11 and 12 as under : “11. Section 18 contemplates that any person interested who has not accepted the award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, can apply to the Collector for referring objection as regards area of the acquired land, objection regarding the quantum of compensation, objection regarding entitlement of any person to whom the compensation is payable and an objection regarding apportionment of the compensation awarded under an award under Section 11 of the said Act for determination of the Court. On such an application being made, the Collector has a power to make a reference to the Court for determination of the objections. After the reference is made to the Civil Court, the applicant in the application under Section 18 of the said Act is placed in a position of a plaintiff who is required to adduce evidence to discharge the initial burden on him. The reference before the Court is an original proceedings and not an appeal against the award. Thus, an application under Section 18 of the said Act is an -3- application praying for a reference to the Court for determination of any or all the four objections set out in Section 18(1). Thus the application contemplated by Section 18(1) cannot be said to be an application for compensation under law relating to acquisition of property for public purpose. 12. The entire argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner proceeds on the footing that an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the said Act, is an application for compensation contemplated by clause (xxii) of Section 19 of the said Act of 1870. Such an application under Section 18(1) is not covered by clause (xxii) or by any other clause of section 19 of the said Act of 1870. In the circumstances, the arguments that the Amendment Acts of 1970 and 1997 are inconsistent with clause (xxii) of Section 19 of the said Act of 1870 does not stand. We find that the amendments providing for payment of court fees on applications for reference under Section 18 of the said Act are not inconsistent with clause (xxii) of Section 19 of the said Act of 187. The amendment made to Bombay Court-fees Act will not help the petitioners inasmuch as the concerned legislature has chosen to specifically clarify the position.” 4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the above Petition. Hence, we pass the following : ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is rejected. (ii) Rule is discharged with no orders as to costs. -4- (iii) We grant time of eight weeks to the Petitioner to pay the requisite Court-fees as provided in the amending Court-fee's Act, 1870. D. G. KARNIK, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*