Court Fees Act | Appeals Against Statutory Benefits In Land Acquisition Compensation Attract Ad Valorem Court Fees : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, confined exclusively to the grant of statutory benefits without challenging the determination or enhancement of compensation, would attract ad valorem court fees on a decretal amount under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

“An appeal under Section 54 seeking reduction or exclusion of any such component (statutory benefits) is an appeal against the decree of the Reference Court relating to compensation and consequently attracts ad valorem court fee under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act. We therefore find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the memorandum of appeal was liable to be accompanied by ad valorem court fee and that payment of a fixed court fee was contrary to law. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, warrants no interference.”, observed a bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Manmohan, while affirming the Uttarakhand High Court's decision to order the Appellant to pay ad valorem court fees in an appeal filed seeking an exclusion of a statutory benefits in a decretal amount of land acquisition compensation.

The case relates to the grant of land acquisition compensation for the rehabilitation of the Tehri Dam oustees. Against the determination of the compensation and seeking an enhancement, the oustees approached the Reference Court besides claiming the statutory benefits under the Act.

The Reference Court rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation but granted the statutory benefits, namely, the additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the agreed compensation, solatium at the rate of 30%, and 3 statutory interest at the prescribed rates.

Against the grant of statutory benefits to the Respondent-oustees, the Appellant filed a First Appeal before the High Court under Section 54 of the Act.

The appeal was valued at Rs. 2,34,03,602.05. However, the appellant paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 10/- on the footing that the appeal did not involve any challenge to the determination of compensation.

Finding the payment of a fixed court fee to be erroneous, the High Court, following due process, directed the appellant to pay ad valorem court fee on the decretal amount of Rs. 2,34,03,602.05 being the amount under challenge in the appeal, within two weeks, following which an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan cited Indore Development Authority v. Tarak Singh and others, (1995) Supp (3) SCC 25, where it was held that an appeal under Section 54 challenging the award of the Reference Court necessarily attracts ad valorem court fee under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act. The Court said that the Appellant would be entitled to pay ad valorem court fees on a difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant, while also rejecting the contention that the statutory benefits forms a separable part in a compensation decretal amount, noting that “once compensation is determined, the decree represents one composite award of compensation comprising the market value together with all statutory additions.”

“Since statutory benefits themselves form an inseparable part of the compensation awarded under the decree, an appeal seeking deletion or reduction of those statutory benefits equally seeks reduction of the decretal compensation…Section 8 thereof is a special provision governing the computation of court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any law providing for compulsory acquisition of land. It expressly mandates that the court fee shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. The provision makes no distinction between the various constituents of compensation, nor does it carve out any exception where the appeal is confined to one or more statutory components thereof.”, the Court observed,

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS S.P. SINGH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 751

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi , AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Saumya Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Mr. Ritwik Saha, Adv.