HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5606 and 5623 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, in I.A. Nos.68 and 69 of 2010 in O.S. No.91 of 2010 dated 03.11.2010. The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of the land under acquisition. A sum of Rs.13,06,540/- was determined as compensation payable for acquisition of the land in question. The petitioner would contend that, after the amounts were deposited with the land acquisition officer who, in turn, had issued a cheque in his favour to enable him to withdraw the amount, the impugned orders came to be passed restraining both the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) and the State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhadrachalam from permitting him to encash the cheque. Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, Learned Counsel, has filed a caveat on behalf of the first respondent and as such the matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. Sri P.V.Ramana, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since the compensation awarded to the petitioner was for Rs.13,06,540/-, the first respondent could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam as his pecuniary jurisdiction, in terms of Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924, is limited only to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Learned Counsel would further submit that, since the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) itself provides for a remedy in case of genuine disputes of title, the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam is barred, and the remedy is only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel would rely on ABC India Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1], M.A.Jabbar v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2] and Krishna Pratapa Rao v. Madgi Pochaiah[3]. Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, Learned Counsel for the first respondent, would submit that the suit as filed is for a bare injunction restraining the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) and the State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhadrachalam from paying money to the petitioner and, in terms of Section 26(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, the suit has been rightly valued at Rs.1,000/-. A perusal of a copy of the plaint filed in O.S.No.91 of 2010 would reveal that the first respondent herein (the plaintiff in the suit) had claimed title over the land under acquisition on the basis of an oral sale in the year 1969, and to have been put in possession thereafter. It is on this basis that he claims to be the owner of the land, and to be entitled for possession. The relief, however, is only to restrain the petitioner herein from receiving compensation, and the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) and the State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhadrachalam from paying compensation in respect of the schedule land. In the suit in O.S. No.91 of 2010 the petitioner does not even claim that compensation should be paid to him. I n M.A.Jabbar2, a suit was filed to declare that the demand of Rs.60,500/-, claimed by the government as abkari arrears, was illegal; and for an injunction restraining the government from proceeding to recover the said arrears. The suit was valued at Rs.5,100/-, and not for Rs.60,500/-. The Court-fee was paid on the suit valued at Rs.5,100/-. A Division Bench of this Court held that the relief sought by the plaintiff had to be valued on the basis of the advantage that he would gain, or the loss he would avoid; in case the demand made by the government was allowed to stand, he would suffer an injury or loss to the extent of Rs.60,500/-; and, there was no suggestion that the government would not be in a position to recover the said amount. The Division Bench held that the suit, therefore, had to be valued for Rs.60,500/- and not Rs.5,100/-. In Krishna Pratapa Rao3, a suit was filed to restrain the defendants from cutting 5055 gulmohwa trees standing in the patta lands of the plaintiffs; and, while the total value of the trees was around Rs.3.00 lakhs, the suit was valued at Rs.500/- . This Court, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board v. K.R.Reddy4, held that the advantage, which the plaintiffs seek to gain, or the loss which they seek to avoid, must be decided with reference to the allegations in the plaint; by virtue of the injunction sought for by the plaintiffs, they would get the advantage of retention of the trees standing in the patta lands; the suit would have to be valued on the value of the trees standing in the patta lands; and the valuation of Rs.500/- was wholly improper. I n ABC India Limited1, a suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against encashment and/or payment of money in pursuance of the bank guarantees furnished by the second defendant-bank at the instance of the plaintiff (revision petitioner); the bank guarantees furnished, in connection with the execution of a contract, was worth Rs.32,82,350/-; the plaintiff’s contention was that the government should not invoke or encash the bank guarantees, which were furnished by the second defendant-bank at the instance of the plaintiff; the inevitable result of encashment of the bank guarantees was to fasten liability against the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.32,82,350/-; injunction was sought by the plaintiff only to avoid loss on account of payment of the aforesaid amount by the bank to the government; encashment of the bank guarantees would result in the petitioner being exposed to the liability to a tune of Rs.32,82,350/-; and the suit was, therefore, undervalued. In the present case, the loss which the first respondent seeks to avoid, as a result of the compensation being paid to the petitioner, is Rs.13,06,540/- and as such the suit could not have been valued at Rs.1,000/-. Since it is not in dispute that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam is only Rs.5,000/-, it is evident that the suit as filed is beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. Further, the Land Acquisition Act itself provides a remedy in case of genuine disputes regarding title over the land and the person to whom compensation is required to be paid, in which event, it was also open to the respondent- plaintiff to invoke the remedy under the special statue and not by approaching the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam. Viewed from any angle, the orders impugned in these revision petitions cannot be upheld and are, accordingly, set aside. The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, allowed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:31.12.2010 usd [1] 1998(5) ALD 399 [2] 1969(1) An.W.R. 411 [3] 1983(1) ALT 147 4 AIR 1977 AP 200