Krishan Kumar and others vs The State of Haryana and others

Gokal Chand Mittal, J.—After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to succeed. The petitioners before ma are plaintiffs in a suit for possession of land of which they were admittedly owners before the acquisition proceedings were taken. To start with their land was requisitioned on 31st January, 1959, by the State and ultimately the same was acquired by notification dated 10th April, 1953 issued by the District Magistrate (competent authority) under the requisitioning and Acquisition or Immovable Property Act, 1952 (heaeinafter referred to as the Act). Inspite of the acquisition, no proceedings for making an award or payment of compensation were taken but since the land was requisitioned before acquisition, the possession was already with the Deputy Commissioner. After the aforesaid notification for acquisition, the land of the claimants was first partly allotted to M/s Gedor Tools (India) Pvt. Limited (hereinafter called the Company) in 1966 and the remaining in 1969. In this case we are concerned with 74 kanals, 15 marlas of land of which the petitioners were owners before acquisition. After the land was allotted to the Company, in one plot construction was raised immediately after allotment in 1966 and in the other plot in 1971. By notification dated 27th April, 1971 published on 11th May, 1971 the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers under the Act, cancelled the acquisition. It is not disputed before me that since the passing of the aforesaid notification cancelling the acquisition, the Company has taken no steps in law for avoiding notification published on 11th May, 1971. The learned counsel for the Company stated that the notification published on 11th May, 1971 was void, and therefore, it was not necessary to take proceedings to avoid it. However, Company till this date for avoiding that notification except by raising a point in reply to the suit that they are not bound by the notification.

The original owners filed a suit for recovering possession of the land in the wake of the notification published on 11th May, 1971 since their land ceased to be under acquisition. That suit was contested by the Company, the State of Haryana and the Union of India, on which several issues were framed including the one relating to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. After whole evidence in the suit was led and the case was posted for arguments on all these issues, the trial judge took up the issue of valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and by order dated 2nd February, 1985, decided that issue against the plaintiffs and directed that ad valorem court fee is payable on the price which was fixed when the two pieces of land were transferred to the Company in 1966 and 1969. The plaintiffs have come to this court in revision against the aforesaid order.

It is well settled that for the purposes of deciding the matter for payment of court-fee the matter has to be considered from the point of view of the relief which the plaintiffs are wanting to claim on the facts of the case. Whether notification published on 11th May, 1971 is legal or illegal, valid or void, will have to be gone into at the appropriate stage. But for the purposes of court fee what transpires is that the plaintiffs are wanting to take possession of the land owned by them which was a ricultural when it was requisitioned on 31st January, 1950 and which was acquired on 10th April, 1963 But that acquisition had been cancelled by notification published on 11th May. 1971. If the Court ultimately finds that the notification cancelling the acquisition is void, the plaintiffs'' suit will stand dismissed, but if the Court ultimately finds that the cancellation was valid or could not be challenged in civil suit by way of defence taken in the written statement, then the acquisition would stand evaporated and the plaintiffs would be entitled to get back the possession of the land in the same state in which it was before it was requisitioned. It is not the case of defendants that the land was not agricultural when it was requisitioned. How it is put to the use lateron, would not stand in the plaintiffs'' way for the purposes of finding out the value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The case of the owners, whether proved or not, will have to be seen on the plane on which they stood when the State started requisition/proceedings amongst them, not on the basis of what the State did after requisition or acquisition or what the allottee did. I am saying this for the reason that if ultimately the plaintiffs'' suit is to be decreed, they would be entitled to restoration of the land in dispute in the same state as it was at the time when they were dispossessed therefrom, with liberty to the State or to the Company, as the case may be, to remove whatever improvements or super-structure they have set up, within the specified time and to restore the land to its original condition i.e. agricultural land, with a direction that if they did not do that within the time specified by the Court, the improvements or Super-structure will go with the land for which no compensation would be payable to the defendants.

By Haryana Act No. 22 of 1974 the Court fees Act, 1970 was amended and section 7(v) (a & b) were added, which after amendment, stood as follows :--

Computation of fees payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :--

(v) for possession of lands houses and gardens :-- In suits for the possession of lands, houses and gardens according to the value of the subject-matter, and such value shall be deemed to be--

(a) where the subject matter is land other then land situated within municipal limits or Abadi Deh whether under cultivation or not, according to the market value therefore which shall be deemed to be--

(i). in the case of land which is irrigated by perennial canal, sixty rupees per acre.

(ii). in the case of land which is irrigated by non-perernnial canal or by well, fifty rupees per acre, and

(iii). in the case of land which is Barani Sailab, Bhud, Thur, Sem, Banjar or of like nature, thirty rupees per acre, and

(b). where the subject matter is house, garden or land situated within municipal limits or Abadi Deh whether under cultivation or not, according to its market value".

On the facts enumerated above, section 7 (v) (a) (iii) would be applicable and the plaintiffs would be liable to pay Court-fee for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court-fee on the price to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 30/-per acre and this is what the plaintiffs have done in this case.

It was sought to be argued on behalf of the Company that the property in dispute carne within the Faridabad Complex Administration in 1971/1972 nnd since it is within urban area, section 7(v)(b) of the Act would be applicable and the Court below was right. As already observed above, for the purposes of giving relief to the plaintiffs we have to see the situation as it obtained in 1950 immediately before the requisition or on the date of requisition was made.

For the reasons recorded above this revision is allowed, the order of the Court below dated 2nd February 1985 is hereby set aside and the issue regarding valuation for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdistion is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendents. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear in the trial Court on 15th May 1985 with a direction to the trial court to decide the suit without delay.