Civil Revision No. 4224 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4224 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : July 15, 2011 Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal and others ....Petitioners versus Kamlesh Rani ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioners L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 16748.CII of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 4224 of 2011 Defendants – Haryana Urban Development Authority and its officers have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 24.2.2011, Annexure P/3 passed by learned trial court thereby dismissing application Annexure P/2 moved by the defendants for rejection of plaint Annexure P/1 instituted by respondent-plaintiff Kamlesh Rani. Civil Revision No. 4224 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for mandatory injunction alleging that the land belonging to the plaintiff and her husband was acquired by the defendants. The plaintiff seeks mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allot residential plot of 3 marlas to the plaintiff being oustee as per policy of the defendants. The defendants in their application Annexure P/2 alleged that plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of Rs 4,82,000/- being the price of the plot sought by the plaintiff-respondent and since the plaintiff has not paid ad valorem court fee, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/3 dismissed application Annexure P/2 moved by the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the plaintiff is seeking allotment of plot by mandatory injunction, the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee on the price of the plot. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has filed suit for mandatory injunction directing defendants to allot the plot under oustee quota. For relief of mandatory injunction, ad valorem court fee is not payable. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to refer to any provision of law or precedent to support his contention that ad valorem court fee is payable. Civil Revision No. 4224 of 2011 (O&M) -3- For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 15, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'