HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR writ Petition (227) No. 1638/2009 PETITIONER Manharan Prasad Pandey, aged 60 years, sen of Shri Nathumm Pandey, resident of village Birgahani, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgiy—Champa {CG} Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State ef Chhattisgarh through the District Co11ector, Janjg‘r- champa, at Janjgir (CG) 2. The Tahsildar, Janjgir Tahsil, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa {CG) 3. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Birgahani, through Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Resident of Viliage Birgahani, Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir — Champs. (CG) Shri Somnath Vermé, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Adv. and Shri Satish ' Gupta, Govt. Adv. for’the State. V SB: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE N.K. AGARWAL ORDER ee—2009) w Heard on admission. l. The peitioneréplajhtiif being aggrieved by the order passed by 1earned 15‘ Additioaai bistrict Judge, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir- Champa, deciding the preliminary issue regarding court fee agahlst the plaintiii' and directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay the proper court fee, has preferred this petition. a. Brief facts necessary for the present petition are that an ejectment order has been passed by the Tehsildar, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No. 20/A—68/05-OQ under Section 248 of the C.G.‘ Land Revenue Code, 1959 {for short, hereinafter referred to as the Code} from the suit land, which was as per order encroached "V \ I. t upoa by the petitioner] piaihtijf by constructing a house tnereon 1n 0rd r to assall the sald fmdmg of TehSIIdar, the plaintiff mitiated a sult seekmg rehef of declaratlon to declare the order passed by the statutory authority i.e. Tehsiidar under Section 248 of the Code as void and ineffective and also seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to restram the V defendant from demolishing the house and from evicting from the Suit land. The plaintin‘ valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 1,00,6oo/—, paid a Conn; rec of RS. 500/- for the relief of declaration and Rs. 60/ — for injunction. Learnedtrial Court after framing preliminary issuein this regard passed the impugned order holding that advaiorum Court fee ought to have been paid on Rs 1 00 600/ and directed the plainttff for payment of defic1ent court fee 3. Shri Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relief of declaration and injunction claimed by the laintiff in the instant suit are independent to each otherrand the relief of injunction is not a consequential relief flowing from the declaratory relief and can be claimed independently of the declaration and the suit would be governed by Section 7(iv)(d) read with Schedule II and Article 17 of Schedule II of the Court fees Act and not under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act and therefore the suit has been properly valued and the order passed by the tnal Court ls illegal and deserves to be set as1de for that rehance has been placed on Smt Sabina alias Farida - v- Mohd. Abdul Wasit reported in AIR 1997 MP 25, Dharamrai Sing —v— Vaidya Natl: Prasad Khare and others reported in AIR 2002 MP 194, Shamsher Singl; —v— Rajinder Prashad and others reported in AIR D1973 SC 2384 and Shakti Nagar Durga G.N. 5 Samiti —v- Indore eity Improvement Trust reported in 1983 MPWN Note N0. 66. 4. Per contra, Shri Sumesh Bajaj and Shri SatishvGupta, learned Govt. Advocates appearing for the State submitted that z p for the purpose of Court fee and valuation of the suit, plajnt allegation alone has to be seen and a bare perusal of the plaint paragraph 5, 8 and 1 1, would reveal that the relief of injunction claimed by the plaintiii‘ flows from the relief of declaration and cannot be claimed independently as the plaintiff is otherwise bound to remove encroachment and vacate the land vide under the order of eviction passed by the statutory authority/Tehsildar and as the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 1,00,600/-, then he is liable to pay advalorum court fee on the said amount and the order passed is perfectly 1llegal 5. I heard learned counsel for the partles and perused the record as also the order mipugned and also have gone through carefully the judgments cited by the petitioner. 6. The controversy in this case revolves around the question whether as per the plaint allegations, the relief of injunction claimed by the plaintiff is consequential to the relief of declaration or is an independent relief, which could be Claimed .by the plaintid‘ even without claiming the relief of declaration. 7. There is no quarrel regarding proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh’s case (supra) and by the M.P. High Court in Smt. Sabina (Supra), Dharmraj Singh (Supra) and in Shakti Nagar’s case (supra) that the true test for ascertaining whether the consequential relief in fact flows h‘om the deplaratory relief is as to whether the said consequential relief can be claimed independently of the declaration as a substantial relief or not, and by applying the said ratio in the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that without claiming the relief of declaration, the plaintiff cannot claim the relief of injunction independently as the order of eviction has already been passed against him and, therefore, the advalorurn Court fee onthe amount of Rs. 1,00,600/— is required to be paid by the petitioner Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court 4 LU Fees Act and the order impugned has been rightly paSSed by the tn'al COurt. . 8. in my opinion, there is no illegality or by well Trial settled Court principles leading to of manifest law that injustice this Court, to in exercise of its infirmity committed the petitioner. lt is jurisdiction under Article 2 supervisory India, should refrain itself from in inte such cases where perversity illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face by the Court below except record, which is not in the present case. above discussion, 9. In view of the dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ,:;;::;/ / 2‘ x N .K. Sdl‘ Agrawa‘ udge 3 of the 27 of the Constitution of rfering with the order passed the petition is liable to be J