VIJAYWADA-GUNTUR-TENALI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.versusMOVVA RANGA RAO AND ORS.

                 VIJAYWADA-GUNTUR-TENALI URBAN                                         A
                 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.
                                v.
                    MOVV A RANGA RAO AND ORS.

                                APRIL 22, 1996
                                                                                       B
              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

         Advocates' Fees Rules (framed l>y A.P. High Cow1) :

       Rules 4(11), S(g), 26-Piirnte Cou11sc!-Paymc11t of fees'-La11d Ac-              C
quisition cascs-Maxinuun being Rs. 200(}--(,'oun lzas to /i111it the fee to Rs.
ZOOO-GJ11usd for both the sides to calculate the jec-77lereafter the amount
to be notified to the Regist1y of the S1t]Jre1nc Cvu1t and it 1vill be inco1JJorated
in the order.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7730 of                       D
Jl)96.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A. No. 590 of 1994.

         Narasimha P.S. and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellants.                          E

         R. Mohan, M.A. Chinnaswamy and G. Prabhakar for the Respon-
dents.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                       F
         Leave granted.

         The only question is : \Vhether the respondent is entitled to a mini-
mum fee of Rs. 2,000 in each of the reference cases in \vhich tI'.e reference
Court has certified it lo be the fee payable to the respondent'! The
respondent appeared as a counsel for the appellant on land acquisition G
reference initially as Government Pleader and after he ceased as such, he
filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant and appeared as private
counsel. On the basis of the memorandum of costs supplied to the respon-
dent, he claimed the amount from the appellant but the appellant has
disputed the liability. On a reference made to the Advocate General of fl
                                    627
                                                                                      '



    628                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. J S.C.R.

A   Andhra Pradesh, the Advocate General has certified that the fee claimed
    is correct one and the respondent is entitled to the same. However, the
    respondent being not satisfied with it, insisted upon the proper fixation of
    the fee payable lo him. Since the appellants have nol been making payment
    of the fee to which the respondent is entitled, the respondent has filed the
    writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court in
B
    W.A. No. 590/94, by judgment and order dated September 5, 1995 has held
    that once the court has fixed the fee, the appellants are bound lo pay the
    same and they cannot go behind the fee fixed by the Court.

          The High Court seems to have proceeded on the premise that under
C   the Advocate's Fees Rules the Court fixes the fee and that parties arc
    bound by the same by holding that it is a contractual relation. There is a
    distinction in payment of the fee between the private counsel and the State
    counsel. As far as the State counsel are concerned, their fee is regulated
    by the rules prescribed by the State Government and thereunder the
D   Government counsel is entitled to the fee or the fee fixed by the Court. Jn
    the latter event, the Government is bound to pay the fee. As regards the
    private counsel, the High Court of A.P. has made the rules, viz., Advocates
    Fees Rules. The same rules are in vogue as on date.

           Rule S(g) prescribed fee in other cases. It contemplates prescribing
E .fee in land acquisition cases envisaging that "in Land Acquisition Cases as
     between the Collector and the claimants, the fee shall be 5% on the amount
     claimed· in excess of the award subject to rninimum of Rs. 100 and a
     maximum of Rs. 2,000. As between rival claimants, the fee shall be calcu-
     lated as for suits under Rule 4(Il).
F
          It would, therefore, be clear that in cases where the fees is to be fixed
    on the basis of the claim on a reference, the court has to calculate the fee
    on the amount claimed the reference and awarded under Section 28 subject
    to a minimum of Rs. 100 at the rate of 5% on the amount claimed by the
    claimants and the maximum thereof would be Rs. 2,000. It would thus be
G clear that in ev.ery case, necessarily, it would not be Rs. 2,000. It depends
   ·upon the valuation of the Claim awatded under Section 26 and the amount
    to be cal<;lllated varies between the minimum and the maximum. If the
    amount claimed is far in excess of 5% and fee calcnlated exceeds 2,000 the
    court has to lirnit the fee to Rs. 2,000 in spite of the amount awarded, it
·H would secure fee of the advocates exceeding Rs. 2,000. It does not per se
    VJJAYWADA-GUNTUR-lENALI URBAN DEV. AUfHORITY v. MR RAO 629


yield to the respondent that in each case, counsel would be paid Rs. 2,000.   A
In every case, the maximum of Rs. 2,000 should not be required to be
determined.

       Shri Mohan, learned senior counsel for the respondent, undertakes
to get all the decrees and the claims made in the decrees settled and he
also assures to sit with the counsel for the appellant and both would         B
calculate the fee to which in each o( the case the respondent would be
entitled to. They are given four weeks' time for making the calculations.
After the calculations are worked out, the amount may be notified to the
Registry and the same will be incorporated in the order,

       The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.                       C

G.N.                                                  Appeal disposed of.