Jagdish vs Lobhiram

S.R. Waghmare, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Kasrawad in Civil Suit No. 57A/14 directing the petitioner to pay appropriate court fees on the amount of the award that is being sought by the present petitioner.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner owns and is in possession of the suit land adjoining to the land belonging to respondents No. 1 and 2 Lobhiram and Atmaram. However the suit land was wrongly demarcated and marked in the revenue map and shown as land of respondents No. 1 and 2. The Land Acquisition Officer along with the other respondents awarded compensation for acquisition of the petitioner''s land to respondents No. 1 and 2. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the Tehsildar, Khasrawad for correcting the revenue records. It was vehemently urged by the Counsel that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land since a long time and the only relief that the petitioner was seeking is that respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 be prevented/stopped from acquiring the suit land without proper verification. However, it came about that the petitioner valued the suit at Rs.1,000/- for the relief of declaration and at Rs.100/- for permanent injunction and paid a court fee of Rs.1100/-. Hence respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 seeking dismissal of the suit and it is in this light that the impugned order has been passed by the trial Court. The trial Court held that the plaint of the present petitioner lacked in particular materials and the petitioner was himself not sure regarding the amount of land or compensation that he is claiming and hence has inappropriately valued the suit and by the impugned order directed that the suit be valued properly and appropriate court fees be paid and hence the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the petitioner had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and he had no knowledge that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have received any cheques as compensation and whether any amount had been specified. Moreover he had not been paid any compensation for his land but he had claimed relief against respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 the govt. officers that they had wrongly acquired his land by sitting in the office and merely paper acquisition has taken place. And he only prayed for injunction that respondents No. 1 and 2 should not take the compensation amount that was meant for his land if at all his land had been acquired. Counsel also urged that the petitioner was seeking an injunction against the govt. officers that his land be not acquired without notice and the compensation be not paid to respondents No. 1 and 2 and since he did not have knowledge as to how much land had been acquired and he was never noticed by the Tehsildar or the Land Acquisition Officer, then whether any cheques regarding the compensation awarded to respondents No. 1 and 2 was also not in his knowledge and it would not be possible for him to quantify the correct court fees. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that for the mistake of respondents No. 1 and 2, the petitioner was being unnecessarily penalised and if he is not received any amount of the award and the mistake has also occurred in the revenue records and he has only filed an application for correcting the revenue records and he urged then why should the petitioner be penalised for payment of the court fees. Counsel prayed that the impugned order be modified or set aside to this extent.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and submitted that there could be no exemption with regard to payment of court fees and if the petitioner had failed to value his claim in the suit appropriately then there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. He prayed that there was no merit in the petition and the same be dismissed.

On considering the above submissions and perusing the impugned order, I find that as held by the trial Court, the petitioner was aware that acquisition proceedings had taken place and award has been made regarding the disputed land, then it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the amount or that he could not value the land that has been acquired by the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 or the claim by respondents No. 1 and 2 to be in their portion. The application for declaration is not vague in this regard. The petitioner is also aware of the fact that there was a map of the revenue Department available for scrutiny in the acquisition proceeding itself and hence the only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is that he may correct the valuation of the relief claimed. The petitioner has submitted that it is not possible to quantify the claim of the petitioner and he placed reliance on Schedule 2, No. 17(vi) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 whereby it is provided that every other suit where it is not possible to estimate the money-value of the subject matter in dispute, and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act; then amount of Rs.500/- is allowed to be paid as court fees. I find that the residuary clause also cannot be invoked in the present petition because the petitioner is well aware that part of the land that has been acquired by the State Govt. (even if it is done wrongly) and he can definitely assess the court fees on the same.

Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent that:-

(i) a preliminary issue be framed by the trial Court with regard to the fact of valuation of the claim of the plaintiff by allowing the plaintiff to produce the necessary maps of the Revenue Department and placing the material regarding the exact amount of the land acquired by the State Govt. and in regard to it compensation that has allegedly been paid to respondents No. 1 and 2.

(ii) Therefore, three weeks'' time is granted to the petitioner plaintiff to move the appropriate application before the trial Court and further two weeks time is granted to the respondents to file reply to the application.

(iii) Thereafter the Court shall determine the court fees that would be required to pay within a week therefrom and grant appropriate time as it deems fit to the petitioner to pay the same.

(iv) Let this exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Counsel for the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5/State is directed to serve a copy of this order in the trial Court as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated above.

Cc as per rules.