Kerala High Court
Gopika D Kumar vs Santhamma on 12 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
Tuesday, the 12th day of November 2024 / 21st Karthika, 1946
IA.NO.2/2024 IN LA.APP. NO. 97 OF 2024
LAR 38/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
---
APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS:
1. GOPIKA D KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF REJI, POTTAKKUZHI,
PUTHENVEEDU, EDAKKODE, PALLICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020.
2. GOUTAM D KUMAR, AGED 23 YEARS ,SON OF REJI, POTTAKUZHI, PUTHANVEEDU,
EDAKKODE, PALLICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020.
3. REJI, AGED 50 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KAMALBHAI, POTTAKKUZHI
PUTHENVEEDU, EDAKKODE, PALLICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. SANTHAMMA, WIFE OF SREEKUMARAN NAIR, SREESANTH BHAVAN, T.C 63/1949,
KULAKKUDIYOORKONAM, NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695042.
2. ANJU S.S.,AGED 39 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF SANTHAMMA 'RAGAM', KURUMI ROAD,
SANTHIVILA, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, , PIN - 695020.
3. SREESANTH S.S., AGED 37 YEARS, SON OF SANTHAMMA, SREESANTH BHAVAN
T.C 63/1949, KULAKKUDIYOORKONAM, NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695042.
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD NATIONAL HIGH WAY DIVISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURM, PIN - 695033.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to permit the
applicant to amend the valuation portion of Memorandum of Appeal as:
VALUATION
Total Valuation : Rs.35,28,900.00
Court fee payable as Schedule II
Art.3 (iii) (a) of the Kerala Court
Fees & Suit Valuation Act)
Court fee paid : Rs.25.00
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S. ANIL PRASAD, C.N.SREEKUMAR, MANJU PAUL, SABU P.JOSEPH,
K.S.MUHAMMED SHEFIN, BEYON T. VARGHESE, Advocates for the Applicants,
M/S. GIRISH KUMAR M S, AKASH S. & RICHU THERESA ROBERT, Advocates for the
respondents 1 to 3 and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the respondents 4 & 5,
the court passed the following:
G. GIRISH, J.
-------------------
L.A.A.No.97 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2024
ORDER
The appellants have filed this application under Order VI Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the valuation portion of the
memorandum of appeal.
2. The appellants were the claimants 1 to 3 in L.A.R.No.38/2019
on the files of Additional District Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, a
reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
aforesaid reference was answered by the said court as per the judgment
dated 06.08.2024 permitting the claimants 4 to 6 to withdraw the amount
in deposit, and disallowing the claim of the appellants herein over the said
amount. Challenging the above judgment of the learned Additional District
Judge, the present appeal is filed by the appellants staking claim over the
amount of Rs.35,28,870/- deposited by the acquisition authority.
3. The valuation portion of the appeal memorandum is extracted
as follows:
"Total Valuation : Rs. 35,28,900-00
Court fee payable u/s 52 of the Kerala }
Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act } Rs. 3,00,712-00
1/3rd Court Fee Paid : Rs. 1,00,237-00"
4. Now, in the present amendment application, the appellants
seek to amend the valuation portion as follows:
"Total Valuation : Rs. 35,28,900-00
Court fee payable u/s Schedule II
Art. 3 (iii) (a) of the Kerala Court }
Fees & Suit Valuation Act } Rs. 25-00
Court Fee Paid : Rs. 25-00"
5. The reason stated for seeking the aforesaid amendment is
that due to a clerical oversight in the office of the appellants' lawyer, the
valuation portion happened to be mistakenly stated in the appeal
memorandum.
6. On 17.10.2024, this Court directed the Registry to submit a
report regarding the claim of the appellants in this application for
amendment. Accordingly, the filing section of this Court submitted a
report stating that the valuation made in the appeal memorandum and
the court fee paid accordingly appeared to be incorrect in the light of the
law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Balakrishnan Nambiar v.
Madhavan and Others [1978 KHC 202]. It is thus pointed out that
the appellants are liable to pay court fee on ad valorem basis as provided
under Section 51 of the Court Fees Act.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, the
learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government
Pleader representing respondents 4 and 5.
8. Section 51 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act,
1959 provides that the fee payable on a memorandum of appeal against
an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in
force for the acquisition of property for public purposes shall be computed
on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed
by the appellant. The question whether in a reference made under Section
32 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, which is almost pari materia
with Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the court fee liable
to be paid in appeal preferred by the aggrieved claimants is under
Schedule II Article 3(iii)(a), was dealt with by the Full Court of this Court in
Balakrishnan Nambiar (supra). It has been laid down by the Full Court
in the aforesaid decision that the appellants in such cases are liable to pay
court fee on an ad valorem basis on the compensation amount they laid
claim to in the appeals, under section 51 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit
Valuation Act. Going by the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in the said
decision, the actual court fee which the appellants herein are liable to
remit is exactly in accordance with the valuation stated in the appeal
memorandum. It seems that the attempt of the appellants is to try
whether the payment of a hefty amount of court fee could be avoided by
resorting to the amendment as sought for in this application. Therefore, it
is not possible to permit the amendment of the valuation portion of the
appeal memorandum as requested in this application since it would
amount to getting the stamp of approval of this Court for the method
adopted by the appellants for court fee evasion. Needless to say that the
amendment application cannot be allowed.
In the result, the I.A stands dismissed.
I.A.No.2/2024 is dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2024. The
appellants are directed to remit the requisite court fee payable at this
stage, within a period of two weeks.
Post after three weeks.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
jsr
12-11-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
