KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.---Originally against the impugned order dated 13-6-1991 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an appeal
(FAO) was presented to this Court on 5-10-1991. Office objected to the maintainability of the appeal on which the memo. Was taken back by the petitioner on 19-10-1991 which was represented on 21- 10-1991 as R.F.A. Alongwith court-fee stamps of the value of Rs.30,800. Some objections again were raised by the office and the case remained with the office under objection till 3-10-1993 when it was taken back by the petitioner. Then on 26-10-1993 the applicant moved this application for issuance of certificate for refund of the said court-fee.
2. The Taxation Officer has objected to the grant of application on the ground that in fact and in law it cannot be said that the appeal was lodged in this Court. It is submitted that appeal can be said to have been filed only when after removal of objections the same is entered in the relevant register. It is further stated that in the circumstances the remedy of the petitioners is with the Collector by tendering the original stamp papers which are with the petitioners to claim the refund.
In reply learned counsel has referred to Dandamudi Sanojini Devi case (AIR 1960 Andhra Pradesh 34), where according to him, under similar circumstances although the Court did not direct refund but did issue certificate enumerating facts of filing of the stamp paper of the value of Rs.111-8-0 (eight annas) and return of the same without adjudication.
3. This judgment does not really decide the question as to when the appeal is said to have been filed. The proceedings of every Court is governed under the rules and orders made by it. In the circumstances, the cited case does not help the petitioner. Objection the Taxation Officer that in the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the memo. Of appeal was filed in this Court seems to be correct and as such upheld. It may be noted that if the claim of the petitioner has been delayed, the petitioner himself is to be blamed. Nonetheless we do observe while we are not granting the prayer for refund. It would be open to the petitioner to apply for the same before the Collector. The petition is accordingly dismissed.