Chattisgarh High Court
Dharamjit Singh vs Lakhan on 3 January, 2023
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No.827 of 2022
1. Dharamjit Singh S/o Late Sampat, aged about 38 years,
2. Pradeep S/o Late Sampat, aged about 29 years,
3. Sandeep S/o Late Sampat, aged about 27 years,
4. Ku. Pinkey D/o Late Sampat, aged about 21 years,
5. Bhagmani Wd/o Late Sampat, aged about 56 years,
All of residence of village - Dhandhapur, P.S. and Tahsil - Rajpur, District
Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG)
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Lakhan S/o Late Ram Sundar, aged about 44 years,
2. Makhan S/o Late Ram Sundar, aged about 42 years,
Both are residence of village - Dhandhapur, P.S. and Tahsil - Rajpur,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG)
3. Rajkumari W/o Heeralal, D/o Late Ram Sundar, aged about 40 years,
Caste-Panika, Residence of village Dauna, P.S. Bhaiyathan, Tahsil - Odgi,
District - Surajpur (CG)
4. Jay W/o Lakhan D/o Late Ram Sundar, aged about 30 years, Caste -
Panika, Residence of village - Budha Bagicha, P.S. and Tahsil - Rajpur,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG)
5. Dilip Jaisawal S/o Moharlal Jaisawal, aged about 45 years,
6. Anita Jaisawal W/o Vipin Jaisawal, aged about 35 years,
The respondent no. 5 and 6 are residence of village - Dhandhapur, P.S.
and Tahsil - Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG)
7. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, District - Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (CG)
---- Respondents
For Petitioners Mr.Sunil Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent No.7/State Mr.Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer
SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order On Board
3/1/2023
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition against the orders dated
10.5.2022 and 22.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Rajpur, in
unregistered civil suit, whereby prior to registration of civil suit the trial
Court has directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay requisite court fees
as per market value of the land though the land is pertaining to
agricultural land.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners / plaintiffs filed a suit for
declaration of title, partition and injunction on the basis of joint family
property. The land in question was revenue paying land, therefore, the
suit was valued on the basis of land revenue, to which valuation was
made. However, prior to registration of civil suit, erroneous suo-moto
objection was raised by the trial Court with regard to payment of
requisite court fees. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders
passed by the trial Court are arbitrary, illegal and against the eye of law,
which deserve to be quashed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
documents annexed with writ petition.
5. In the matter of Basant Kumar v. Ved Prakash and others reported in
2014 SCC OnLIne MP 2209, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has
observed that when the suit for possession of a land assessed to land
revenue, the plaintiff is only required to pay court fees on the basis of
the land revenue. The relevant paras read thus:-
"8. Section 7(v)(a) of the Court Fees Act contemplates a
provision for the matter of payment of court fees in suit for
possession of lands, houses and gardens and the said section
reads as under:
Section 7(v). For possession of lands, houses and gardens.- In
suits for possession of lands, houses and gardens, according
to the value of the subject matter, and such value shall be
deemed to be where subject matter is land; and
(a) such land is assessed to land revenue or land revenue
is payable in respect of such land-twenty times the land
revenue so assessed or so payable;
(b) such land forms a part of land which is assessed to
land revenue or in respect of which land revenue is
payable twenty times of the land revenue
proportionately worked out for such part of land;
(c) such land is not assessed to land revenue-twenty
times of the land revenue worked out at the rate of five
rupees per acre.
Similarly section 7(vi-a) contemplates a provision for payment of
court fee in suit for partition and the same reads as under:
Section 7(vi-a). in suits for partition.-
(a) according to one half of the value of the plaintiffs
share of the property; and
(b) according to the full value of such share if on the date
of presenting the plaint the plaintiff is out of possession
of the property of which he claims to be a co-parcener or
co-owner, and his claim to be a co-parcener or co-owner
on such date is denied.
9. If the plaint filed by the petitioner Annexure-P/2 is taken
note of, it would be seen that the property in question is an
agricultural land which is the ancestral property of the family
and petitioner is claiming possession of the land based on his
right to the property.
10. In the case of Bhagwati (supra) the provision of the Court
fees Act has been taken note of and it has been held in the
aforesaid case that in the suit for possession of a land
assessed to land revenue, the plaintiff is only required to pay
twenty times of the land revenue as court fee. It is held that if
the plaintiff is out of possession he will be required to pay
court fee on the actual market value. Based on the aforesaid
judgment in the case of Narayan Prasad (supra) also various
other judgments have been taken note of and decided the
matter in the following manner:-
In the matter of Bhagwati vs. Chamar Rai,1980(II) MPWN
Note 22, wherein the suit was instituted for partition and
separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit lands
which are separately assessed to land revenue, this Court
held that perusal of clause (vi-a) of section 7 shows that
in a suit for partition, without claiming separate
possession, the suit has to be valued according to one-
half of the value of the plaintiffs share of the property.
This is indicative of the facts that Court fees payable on
such a suit is less than the Court fee payable when a suit
is instituted for partition and separate possession on the
ground that the plaintiff is out of possession. The
Legislative intent is thus clear that when a plaintiff claims
partition and separate possession on the ground that he
is out of possession, the claim is to be valued just like a
suit for possession simpliciter. In fact, when a co-owner
files a suit for partition and separate possession, on the
ground that he is out of possession, there is no
difference between such a suit and a suit for possession
based on title. The amendment to the Court Fees Act
(Act No.4 of 1976) with effect from 1-3-1976 was
introduced to clarify that even in cases where possession
of a part of the land separately assessed to land revenue
was claimed, Court fees payable on such claim will be
proportionately worked out for such part of the land.
This clarification had become necessary to get over some
judgment which had laid down that where the claim was
for the entire land separately assessed to land revenue,
its marked value will be deemed to be twenty times the
land revenue but if it was for a part of land and that part
was not separately assessed, the claim will have to be
valued on the actual market value. The intention was to
provide relief to agricultural and the owners of land
revenue paying lands. "
6. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of aforesaid legal
provision and settled principle of law, it is quite vivid that at the time of
registration of civil suit it appears that the petitioners / plaintiffs have
properly valued the suit on the basis of land revenue. So, direction given
by the trial Court is not sustainable.
7. Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 10.5.2022 and 22.11.2022 are
quashed. However, it is made clear that after appearance of the
defendants if any such ground has been raised about the valuation of
court fees, the concerned Court is expected to decide the same strictly
on its own merit in accordance with law.
8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No
cost(s).
Sd/-
( Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
B/-
