(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 29.06.2018 passed in Ar.O.P.(CFR) No.8429 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Judge, erode by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.)

1. The claimant in a land acquisition proceeding, is the revision petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the return of AOP.No.2017 in CFR.No.8429 of 2017, requiring the petitioner to pay Court fee under Schedule II Article 1(m) at the rate of 3% of the value, capped at a maximum of Rs.1 lakh.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.G.Sumitra, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

3. Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the landowners had lost their valuable property in acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act. The land acquisition officer had awarded compensation far below the commensurate market value prevailing on the relevant date and therefore, the petitioner had sought for enhancement before the District Collector. The District Collector has confirmed the order passed by the land acquisition officer, which necessitated the petitioner to file the Arbitration OP before the learned District Judge.

4. Mr.S.Subbaiah learned Senior Counsel would submit that, the claimant is entitled to exemption under Section 72 of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and further, the OP filed by the petitioner was only seeking enhancement of the amount awarded by the District Collector and it cannot be treated as an Application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He would further contend that mere quoting of wrong provision that is, section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not disentitle the petitioner from claiming the exemption under Section 72 of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 which does not require any Court fee to be paid by the revision petitioner.

5. Mr. Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2004) 137 STC 389 and Diwan Brothers Vs. Central Bank of India, Bombay and others, reported in (1976) 3 SCC 800.

6. Mr. Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel would therefore state that the petitioner is entitled to avail the exemption and he cannot be forced to pay Court fee, treating the application for enhancement of compensation as one under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

7. Per contra, Mr. Su Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent would state that the property of the petitioner was acquired for the formation of a four-way lane of National Highway No.47 and an award, after considering the objections of the petitioner came to be passed on 16.09.2008.

8. The learned counsel would further state that the competent authority fixed the compensation at Rs.74.13 per square meter, for the total land measuring 7125.50 square meters. Not satisfied with the award, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and approached the District Collector, Erode and the District Collector, on enquiry, confirmed the award of the competent authority. It is therefore the contention of Mr.Su.Srinivasan, that the Arbitration OP was rightly filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, challenging the award of the Arbitrator/ District Collector in the present case.

9. Inviting my attention to section 3G of the National Highways Act 1956, Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would squarely apply to the case on hand and the reliance placed on Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,1955 was wholly misplaced.

10. Drawing a parallel to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel would submit that insofar as Applications filed for enhancement of compensation before the Civil Court or for seeking reference to the Civil Court, no Court fee is payable. However, when the Reference Court passes an award and if it is challenged by way of appeal to this Court, then a Court fee would have to be necessarily paid. It is therefore the contention of Mr.Su.Srinivasan that the present application is not a claim for mere enhancement of compensation, but challenging the award of the competent authority as confirmed by the arbitrator/District Collector. Therefore, the OP was rightly filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not inadvertently filed under Section 34 as argued by the learned Senior Counsel.

11. Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel, apart from the arguments on the merits, would also contend that the revision itself is belated and not maintainable. It is his contention that the application filed for exemption of Court fee was returned by the District Court on 23.06.2018 as not maintainable. Yet, the present revision petition came to be filed only on 14.11.2025. Mr.Su.Srinivasan, would further contend that even though there is no limitation period fixed for filing revisions invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner cannot approach the Court at his whims and fancies and he would be bound by the law of limitation which would ordinarily apply for making such claims. In this regard, he relies on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394 and Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and Others, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 215.

12. He would further state that the revision is not maintainable and the petitioner will have to necessarily pay the Court fee as contemplated under Article 1(m) of Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. He would further state that the petitioner should not also be allowed to take advantage of the delay and get the benefit of interest for this period. He would therefore pray for suitable orders to be passed in this regard.

13. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and I have also gone through the records.

14. It is not in dispute that the lands belonging to the revision petitioner in Survey No.459/1A ad-measuring 7125.50 sq.mts was notified under the National Highways Act for the purposes of formation of a four-way lane of NH 47. The competent authority has fixed the compensation at Rs.74.13 per sq.mtr and the same has been confirmed by the District Collector, erode who admittedly acted as an Arbitrator in the matter. Even in the petition filed by the revision petitioner, in the unnumbered AOP, there is clear indication to such effect that the OP has been filed, challenging the award passed by the competent authority at the hands of the District Collector/Arbitrator, confirming the award of the Competent Authority.

15. Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 is extracted for easy reference: -

                            3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation. —

                            (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.

                            (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land.

                            (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.

                            (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land.

                            (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government—

                            (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.

                            (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration—

                            (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A;

                            (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;

                            (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;

                            (d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.

                            Similarly, Section 72 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, is also extracted here under.

                            72. Exemption of certain documents.

                            - Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents chargeables with any fee: -

                            (i) mukhtarnama, vakalatnama or other written authority to institute or defend a suit when executed by a member of any of the Armed Forces of the Union not in civil employment;

                            (ii) memorandum of appearance filed by advocates or pleaders when appearing for persons proceeded against in criminal cases;

                            (iii) plaints and other documents in suits filed in village courts;

                            (iv) plaints in suits before Collectors under [Tamil Nadu][Substituted for the word 'Madras' by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws Order, 1969 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws (Second Amendment) Order, 1969.]Regulation XII of 1816;

                            (v) application or petition to a Collector or other officer making a settlement of land revenue, or to the [Board of Revenue] [By virtue of section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act36 of 1980, any reference to the Board of Revenue shall be a reference to the State Government of the Appropriate Authority specified in the notification under section 4(1) of the said Act. The Commissioner of Land Administration has been vested with the powers and functions of the Board of Revenue.] relating to matters connected with the assessment of land, or with the ascertainment of rights thereto or interest therein, if presented previous to the final confirmation of such settlement;

                            (vi) application relating to a supply for irrigation of water belonging to Government;

                            (vii) application for leave to extend cultivation or to relinquish land, when presented to an officer of land revenue by a person holding, under a direct engagement with Government, land of which revenue is settled but not permanently;

                            (viii) application for service of notice of relinquishment of land or of enhancement of rent;

                            (ix) written authority to an agent to distrain;

                            (x) first application (other than a petition containing a criminal charge of information) for the summons of a witness or other person to attend either to give evidence or to produce a document or in respect of the production or filing of an exhibit not being an affidavit made for the immediate purpose of being produced in Court;

                            (xi) bail bonds in criminal cases other than bail bonds in village courts, recognizances to prosecute or give evidence and recognizances for personal appearance or otherwise;

                            (xii) petition, application, charge or information respecting any offence when presented, made or laid to or before a police officer, or to or before the heads of villages or the village police;

                            (xiii) petition by a prisoner or other person in duress or under restraint of any Court or its officer;

                            (xiv) complaint of a public servant as defined in the Indian Penal Code (Central Act XLV of 1860) or an officer of the [State Railway] [Now, Indian Railways.];

                            (xv) application for permission to cut timber in Government forests or otherwise relating to such forests, not being applications from forest contractors for extending the period of their leases;

                            (xvi) application for the payment of money due by the Government to the applicant, other than an application for refund of lapsed deposit made six months after the date on which the amount lapsed to the Government;

                            (xvii) petition of appeal against any municipal tax;

                            (xviii) application for compensation under any law, for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of property for public purposes;

                            (xix) petition under section 48 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (Central Act XV of 1872);

                            (xx) petition or appeal by a Government servant or a servant of the Court of Wards when presented to any superior officer or Government against orders of dismissal, reduction or suspension; copies of such orders filed with such appeals, and applications for obtaining such copies.

16. It is thus seen from the above, especially Section 34(6), in respect of petitions filed challenging the award of the District Collector, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would squarely apply. In such circumstances, I see no force in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel that the AOP filed by the petitioner is not under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Once it is found and held that the AOP was rightly filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, then the applicable Court fee under Schedule II of Article 1(m) would have to be necessarily paid by the petitioner.

17. The other question that now falls for consideration is whether the petitioner can take advantage of Section 72 of the Court Fees Act and claim exemption. Section 72, as rightly contended by Mr. Su. Srinivasan, will not apply to the present stage of the proceedings, which is a challenge to an award passed by the District Collector who acted as the Arbitrator in the matter relating to enhancement of compensation. Section 72 would apply only when the petitioner sought for enhancement by approaching the District Collector/ Arbitrator and not to a challenge made to the award passed by the District Collector/Arbitrator. Therefore, the petitioner is certainly obligated to pay the applicable Court fee as envisaged under Schedule II, Article 1(m) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

18. With regard to the decisions that have been relied on by Mr. S. Subbaiah, learned Senior Counsel, in Associated Cement Companies Ltd's case (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an exemption notification where liability to pay sales tax was exempt insofar as the dealer was concerned. In this backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that exemption being freedom from liability, tax or duty has to be strictly construed. I have already found that Section 72 exemption is not available at the hands of the petitioner. In such circumstances, I do not see how this decision will come to the rescue of the revision petitioner.

19. In Diwan Brother's case (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the laudable objects of the Court Fees Act, held that Courts have to interpret the provisions of a fiscal statute strictly so as to give benefit of doubt to the litigant. In the present case, I do not find any ambiguity or necessity to entertain a doubt in the first place in order to give a benefit of such doubt to the revision petitioner. As already held, this is the second round of challenge, having already unsuccessfully challenged the award of the competent authority before the Arbitrator. Therefore, this decision also will not come to the rescue of the revision petitioner.

20. With regard to the decisions that have been relied on by Mr.Su.Srinivasan, no doubt the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Banda Development Authority's case (referred herein supra) that even if no limitation is prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, even then Constitutional Courts, as a rule of self-imposed restraint, should not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time, that may adversely affect settled or crystallized rights of the parties and any such petition filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit, should be treated as one with unreasonable delay and same should not be entertained on merits.

21. Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent would bring to my notice that the said decision was also rendered in the context of land acquisition proceedings and therefore the belated challenge by the petitioner should not be entertained. However, I am unable to countenance the said submission of learned counsel Mr.Su.Srinivasan, for the simple reason that the challenge in Banda Development Authority's case (referred herein supra) was to the very acquisition itself alleging that actual physical possession had not been taken over from the landowners. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court put delay against the landowners. However, the same ratio cannot be applied in a matter where fair and just compensation is to be determined and payable to the landowners.

22. In Mrinmoy Maity's case (referred herein supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an applicant who approaches Court belatedly and sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time should not be granted the extraordinary relief in writ petitions, unless the delay is explained and it appeals to the conscience of the Court. Placing reliance on this decision, Mr.Su.Srinivasan contended that the petitioner has not set out any reason, much less justifiable reason for not approaching this Court by way of the above revision or even offered any explanation for the reasons for delay.

23. However, as indicated herein above already, when the Arbitration OP pertains to payment of fair compensation and it is a remedy made available under the National Highways Act, 1956 and admittedly the OP has been filed in time, the challenge to the requirement of payment of Court fee and the delay that has occasioned subsequently cannot be put against the petitioner to non-suit the petitioner to any relief. However, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Su.Srinivasan, for the delayed period which can be attributed solely to the revision petitioner, in the event of the compensation being enhanced by the District Court, the petitioner should not be allowed to take advantage of the entitlement to interest for the period of delay.

24. Coming to the requirement of payment of proper Court fee, in view of the foregoing discussions, the finding of the learned District Judge requiring payment of Court fee under Schedule II of Article 1(m) is upheld. The petitioner shall have to value the arbitration OP which is admittedly one under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and pay the applicable Court fee under Schedule II Article 1(m) of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The petitioner is granted four weeks' time from the date of receipt of the copy of his order to pay the applicable Court fee and represent the AOP in CFR.No.8429 of 2017. The Registry shall return the original AOP in CFR.No.8429 of 2017 to the learned counsel for the petitioner across getting an acknowledgement from the cousnel for the petitioner, within a week from the date of the copy of this order being uploaded in the High Court website.

25. In the event of the petitioner paying the applicable Court fee within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of the original petition in AOP CFR.No.8429 of 2017, the learned Principal District Judge shall entertain the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and proceed to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair opportunity to both parties.

26. It is made clear that in the event of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode coming to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation, then the Principal District Judge shall ensure that the petitioner shall not be given the benefit of any interest component for the period beginning July 2018 till December 2025.

27. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.