IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15444 of 2012 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15445 of 2012 TO SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15490 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI ================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ================================================================ HASMUKHBHAI RATANSIBHAI KANBI (PATEL) & 4 Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR JITENDRA H SINGH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PK JANI, GOVT.PLEADER WITH MR.NIRAJ ASHAR, AGP for Respondents.
================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 27/12/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. Rule. Service of Notice of Rule is waived by learned Government Pleader.
2. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioners, whose lands have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act’), and being aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, they preferred an applications for reference under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Those applications of the petitioners were practically rejected on the ground that the court fees directed to be paid on the basis of their claims were not paid, and those communications demanding the court fees have been called into question by the petitioners in these petitions.
3. Upon issuance of notice for final disposal, learned Government Pleader Mr.Jani has appeared for the respondents, and fairly conceded that, few other petitions challenging the vires and validity of relevant provisions of the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004, are already under challenge, and on the other hand, the issue of levying court fees on the applications under Section 18 of the Act, is under serious consideration of the State Government. It was seen from the record and conceded at the Bar that the petitioners have affixed the minimum court fees of Rs.30/ on their applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act, and they have also submitted their undertakings in the following terms:
UNDERTAKING “The Court Fees on the said amount has not been paid in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, but in case of the court fee stamp is required to be affixed as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the matter is pending for final decision, the claimants hereby undertake to pay the court fee to the Government or to the Hon. Court, if it is ordered.”
4. Pursuant to, and in accordance with the aforesaid undertaking, it was stated on behalf of the petitioners by learned counsel Mr.Jitendra H.Singh that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the amount of court fees by the end of proceedings before the Reference Court, as may be ordered as also to authorise the State Government to deduct the amount of court fees from the amount that may be ordered to be paid to the petitioners by way of additional compensation, if any.
5. In above facts and circumstances and in view of the understanding arrived at between the parties, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the petitions were not pressed at this stage, relying upon the statement of learned Government Pleader that presently the applications of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Act, shall be duly considered and expeditiously decided for making of the reference by the appropriate authority, without insisting upon payment of any further court fees. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that the petitioners shall file their undertakings before the Reference Court in the aforesaid terms, so as to assure payment of such courtfees as may be ordered or found to be payable.
6. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed, and the parties are directed to abide by the statement recorded hereinabove, and accordingly, by consent, the impugned orders are set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs.
(D.H.WAGHELA, J.) (G.R.UDHWANI, J.) syed/