1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLN. NO. 625 OF 2008 Shashikant Kashinath Sable & ors. ... Applicants (Ori.Defs.1 to 8) v/s Keshav Ganpat Sable & ors. ... Respondents (Ori. plaintiff and other defendants) Mr.M.M.Sathaye for the applicants. Mr.Tushar Sonawane for the respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 4TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The application has been preferred against the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Divn., Nashik. By this order, the learned Judge has answered the preliminary issues raised by the defendants regarding the jurisdiction of the Court as the suit property had been undervalued by the plaintiff. 2. The suit was filed for a declaration and perpetual 2 injunction in respect of the suit land. It appears that the suit land was agricultural land and that on 7.7.2006 the defendants had applied to the authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for conversion of the same to non-agricultural use. While that application was pending the suit was filed on 18.10.2006. The order converting the land from agricultural land was issued on 13.11.2006. The applicants/defendants had applied to the learned Judge for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit had not been properly valued. That application has been considered by the learned Judge who has held that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff has been directed to value the suit as per the provisions of Sections 6(iv)(d) read with Section 6 (iv)(v) and (b) of the Bombay Court Fees Act and to pay the additional Court fee stamp within a period of one month from the date of the impugned order. 3. Mr. Sathaye appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Judge has committed an error while dismissing the application filed by the applicants. He submits that the land must be considered to be non-agricultural land for which market value would have to be taken into consideration for the purposes of payment of Court fees. 3 According to him, in view of Section 44(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the land is deemed to have been converted to non-agricultural use within 90 days from the date of the application. He submits that 90 days had elapsed after the application was made on 7.7.2006, and the suit was filed on 18.10.2006. He therefore submits that it is necessary to pay the requisite Court fees and since that had not been done the plaint itself ought to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. On perusal of Section 44(3) of the Land Revenue Code, it is obvious that there is a deemed conversion of the land if the Collector fails to inform the applicant of his decision within 90 days from the date of the application or from the date of receipt of the application. Admittedly, this application of the applicants for conversion of the land to non-agricultural use must be deemed to have been granted by 7.10.2006 i.e. prior to the suit being filed. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicants are right in contending that the plaint ought to have been rejected since the Court fees has not been paid adequately. 5. The order impugned in the present civil revision application is set aside. 4 6. The plaintiff is directed to pay the Court fees by considering the property as non-agricultural land within four weeks from today. The suit to proceed further thereafter. 7. Civil Revision Application disposed of accordingly. .......