JUDGMENT
C.P. Sinha, J.
1. The question raised in these appeals, and which affects similar appeals, is whether any court-fee is payable on petitions of appeal to this Board.
2. Under Section 17 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950), an appeal is provided against a decision of the Claims Officer under Section 16 to a Board to be constituted by the State Government in the manner provided by Section 18. Section 18 (1) of the Act provides that the Board shall consist of one member who shall be (a) a Judge of the High Court, if the appeal preferred involves a claim exceeding ten thousand rupees; (b) a District Judge, if such appeal involves a claim which does not exceed ten thousand rupees,
Sub-section (2) of Section 18 reads– “Such appeal shall be disposed of according to the prescribed procedure”. Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, rules have been framed, but those rules do not relate to court-fees. One of the rules, namely, Rule 13, provides for disposal of appeals under Subsection (2) of Section 18 as follows:
“In hearing and disposing of appeals filed under Section 17, the Board shall, so far as may be, follow the same procedure as is provided in the rules under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the disposal of Civil appeals.”
This does not touch the question of court-fees. We have got, therefore, to go to the Court-fees Act.
3. Learned Advocate-General, who was heard on behalf of the State submitted that the court-fees leviable on such petitions of appeal should be as provided for by Schedule II, Article 11, read with Section 6 of the Court-fees Act, no other section or article of the Act being applicable. Section 6 of the Court-fees Act is as follows:
“Except in the Courts hereinbefore mentioned no document of any of the kinds specified as chargeable in the first or second schedult to this Act annexed shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Court of justice, or shall be received or furnished by any public officer, unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said schedules as the proper fee for such document.”
This section occurs in Chapter III which is headed as “Fees in other Courts and in Public Offices”. Chapter II is headed “Fees in the High Courts and in the Courts of Small Causes at the Presidency-Towns”. The Board constituted under Section 18 of the Land Reforms Act, therefore, is not covered by Chapter II, and can only be covered by Chapter III.
Section 6 of that chapter enjoins that no document of any of the kinds specified as chargeable in the first or second schedule shall be received by any public officer unless there be paid a fee not less than that indicated in the said schedules. There can be no doubt that the Judge of the High Court who constitutes the Board and to whom appeals under Section 17 lie is a public officer.
”Public Officer” has not been defined in the Court-fees Act, but it has been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2 (17), as meaning “a person falling under any of the following descriptions, namely:– (a) every Judge:……
“We need not consider the other sub-clauses of Section 2 17. Thus the document, namely, the petition of appeal, cannot be received by the Board without payment of court-fees prescribed either in Schedule I or in Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. Now, the relevant article of Schedule I is Article 1, and the first column of which as applicable to Bihar is as follows:
“Plaint, written statement pleading a set-off or counter-claim or memorandum of appeal or of cross-objection not otherwise provided for in this Act, presented to any Civil or Revenue Court except those mentioned in Section 3.”
It is clear that the Board is neither a civil nor a revenue Court. The Court-fees Act provides for payment of court-fee -on memorandum of appeal in Schedule II, Article 11, the first column of which is as follows: “Memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having the force of a decree or of cross-objection.” The order of the Claims Officer cannot be called a decree or an order having the force of a decree, and, therefore, Schedule II, Article 11, applies.
It is true that Schedule II, Article 11, applies to these documents if presented (a) to any Civil Court other than a High Court, or to any Revenue Court or Executive Officer other than the High Court or Chief Controlling Revenue or Executive Authority and (b) to a High Court or Chief Commissioner, or other Chief Controlling Executive or Revenue Authority, for which fixed court-fees are payable as mentioned in column No. 3.
Now, reading this Schedule with Section 6, already quoted, there is no doubt that the petition of appeal under Section 17 of the Land Reforms Act is a document of the kind specified in Schedule II, Article 11, and is received by a ‘public officer’ and, as such, these petitions of appeal are chargeable under that article, and a fixed court-fee has to be paid.
4. The other subsidiary question is as to whether the court-fee is payable under Sub-clause (a) or Sub-clause (b) of second column of Schedule II, Article 11 of the Court-fees Act. It was very fairly submitted by the learned Advocate General that only the smaller of the two court-fees mentioned in column 3 of that article is payable. In view of the fair attitude taken by the learned Advocate-General, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had to agree to the view taken by the learned Advocate-General.
In the case of Jagat Bahadur Singh v. Punjab State, AIR 1957 punj 32 (A), a question somewhat similar to the present one had arisen for decision. The question there was the payment of court-fee, if any upon memorandum of appeal under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (Act XI of 1953), Section 11 of which provided an appeal by a person aggrieved by the award of the arbitrator, and it was held that an award of compensation made by an arbitrator acting under the Act was neither a decree nor an order having the force of a decree within the words used in Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. and, therefore, an appeal preferred to the High Court against such an award was governed by Schedule II, Article 11 and not by Schedule I. article 1, and would be chargeable with a fixed court-fee.
It has to be remembered that in that case the Act had provided for an appeal to the High Court unlike the present one in which appeal lies not to the High Court but to the Board consisting of a judge of the High Court.
5. After having considered the matter, I: am of the opinion that a fixed court-fee is payable on petitions of appeal under Section 17 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, as provided for by Article 11 (a), Schedule II of the Court-fees Act.
6. This matter arose upon the report of
the Stamp Reporter, and thereupon I directed
that I should hear the State and the appellants
who had so far filed their appeals to this Board,
and they have been heard.