PETITIONER : Ramashankar Gupm S/o La€e Shri Hazan' L211 Gupi‘a, Aged about 58 years, R/o Ward Nil 16, Manendragarh, District Koria {C.G.} RESPONDENTS EI€H C(T3URT 9F CHHATTKSGARH AT BHA$PUR ERIT PETITION (C3 N0. 5509 0f2GQ8 VERSUS 1. Dwamiieni State of Chhattisgath 3f Revemie, Maiitzalaya, thmugjl Sacreiat'y D.K.S. Bhavan: Raipur (0G,) Presem: 2. CoHector, Koria (CG) Manendragarh, Dism'ct Koria (C.G.) (CG) 3. Sub Divisional Oi‘ficer; (Revenue) 4. Tahsiidar, Manendragarh: District — Koria w SB: Hon’iile Sin'i Satish K. A ’ otri J. Shri Shashank Thakm‘, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. QRAji 0.. R..D.E__R;_ (Passed an lgyc‘uay of Ocieber, 2008 The peiitioner, being aggrieveé by the order dated 14.12.2006 recorded on Amexure W1 i.e.ithe appiication made by the petitioner to obtain certified copy of compiete order~sheet of the proceedings and other relevant documents from the court of Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue) {for short ‘S.D.O. (RH Manendragarh, in the Revenue Case ’No. 01/A/23/06-07 (Rajkumar V. Ramashankar Gupta and others), has filed this petition questioning the ortienwhich provides that in absence of Court fees, the same cannot be granted to the petition er. At this stage, it is mt necessary to go into the details of the ease. The question invoived in this petition coniines to the issue asto whether the petitioner is entitled to pay some court fee for ohmining certified copy of the orders/documents etc. or not. According to ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Revenue Record Rules framed in exercise ofpower under section 258 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, payment ot‘25 paise per page has been dispensed with subsequently by notiti cation dated 2 1 S‘ of May, 1971. WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ) //., 1' Shri Thakur further submits that the letter dated 23.04.2007 (Armsxure P/2) fE‘om Tehsildar, Manendragarh, District Koria, wherein it was provided that the petitioner is required to pay a sum of Rs. 2/— for obtaining ceitified copy of the orders and other documents from the Court, is bad in iaW as the Revenue Courts are govemed under the provisions ofLand Revenue Code and rules tiramed thereunder. The petitioner has not questioned the appiicability and validity of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (for shoit ‘the Act, 1870’) provides that when an application is presented to any Cit/ii: Cn'minai or Revenue Court, or to any board or executive officer for the puzpose of obtaining a copy or translation of any judgment, decree or order passed by such Court, Board or Otficer, or of any other such Court or Office, a fixed fee ofRs. 2/- would he payable. The petitioner does not question the applicability oftbe provisions ofthe Court Fees Act, 1870 to the proceedings before the Revenue Court. Section 6 of the Act, 1870 provides for fees in other Courts and public ottices. Thus, the Court Fees Act is applicable not only to the Civil Courts, High Courts but to other Courts and in public offices also. In View of the tiact that the Act, 1870 clearly provides for payment of a fix sum of Rs. 2/- on the app‘rication for obtaining documents has not been complied with, the order dated 14.12.2006 recorded on Annexure F/l, by the S.D.O.(R), Manendragarh, is just and proper and needs no interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine. No order asto costs. R Sd/- \' isatish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge y t“ x