MP High Court Issues Notice On Landowner’s Appeal Under Land Acquisition Act Questioning Imposition Of Ad-Valorem Court Fees
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued notice on an appeal by a landowner challenging an award passed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, wherein the landowner has also questioned the imposition of ad-valorem court fees in filing the appeal.
For context, ad valorem indicates the amount levied which is in proportion to the estimated value of the goods or transaction concerned.
Issuing notice on the appeal Justice Vishal Dhagat listed the matter in the week commencing from July 28.
In the previous hearing on June 16, the court had granted a last opportunity to appellant-landowner’s counsel to argue on the question of deficit court fee as pointed out by the Registry.
During the hearing on June 23, the counsel appearing for the appellant landowner, advocate Pranay Pathak argued that appellant may not be directed to pay the court fees as fixed in appeals.
It was submitted that proceedings are arising out of Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
For context, Section 74 of the Act pertains to Appeals before the High Court. It states that any person aggrieved by the award passed by an Authority under Section 69 of the 2013 Act may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of compensation Award granted for acquiring the land.
The appellant’s counsel further submitted that the legislation is beneficial in nature. It is also submitted that when land is acquired under other acts, in appeals court fee is not required to be paid ad valorem as paid in cases of civil appeals. He submitted that if the appellant’s land is acquired under National Highways Act, then in appeal, he is not required to pay the same amount of court fee.
He said that there cannot be discrimination between two land owners, whose lands are being acquired by the state government and there cannot be two sets of different court fee.
As the counsel appearing for state sought some time to file his response, the court permitted the same.
Case Title: Nathuram Chaurasiya v Water Resource Department (FA-2303-2024)
Counsel For Appellant: Advocate Pranay Pathak
Counsel For Respondent: Government Advocate Vineet Singh
