s.'00.-^^.-"" - ^^,:§3-&:'""".'.--" ^ '\y:>" o ,^^^ L^-""" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.)) WRIT PETITION fQ N0. l4^-S Qp 2008 PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENT DEFENDANT /<L. Roopendra Kumar Ratre, Minor, Son of Late Shri Sevakram Ratre, /2. Ravishanker Ratre, Minor, Son of Late Shri Sevakram Ratre; Through their natural guardian Mother Smt. Dayabai Wife of Late Shri Sevakram Ratre and both resident of Railway Station Bhatgaon, Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS ^Ghanau Ram Ratre Son of Dau Satnami, Resident of Village Bhatgaon, Mana Basti Camp, Police Station Mana Camp, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA L^_... yl^' tNQM GOURT OF GMHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(ClNo.46Sof2008 PETn-IONERS PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENT DEFENbANf Roopendra Kumar Ratre <Minor) & another. Versus GhanauRam Ratre WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTIGl^ 227 OF THE CONStItOtlbNOFINDIA <Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kumar Mlshra. J.l Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, counset forthe petitioners. None for the respondent. ORALORDER (Passed on 25th day ofAugust.2010) Heard. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by (he trial Court allowing defendant's application under Order 7 Rute 11 ofthe CPC thereby directing the petitloners/ptairrtiffs to pey ad-vetorem Court fee on the market value of his half share, e» claimed in the suit. 3. Contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner is that in a suit for partitionof agricultural lands, the plalntiff is requlred to pay Court fee @ 20 times of the land Revenue where the lands are assessed to land revenue and that the trial Court should not have directed the plaintiffe to pgy ad-velorem Court fee. 4. Copy of tt»e plaint te available on recoret as Annexure P-1. In para 4 of the plaint, it is sttted that the syft tands are agrteultural lands. In para 17 of the plalnt, tt has been mentloned that for partition and separate possession, the sutt is valued at 20 times of the land revenue i.e. Rs. 4.98 x 20. Coyrt Lfee of Rs.100/- has been paid for seeking the relief of partition. '^ ^^:% 1 / M^ ...y ^ 5. The learned trial Court has referred to ttie provistons contained jn Section 7 (vi)(a) ofthe Court fee Act while directing the plaintiffto pay ad-velorem Court fee. 6. ln the full Bench judgnwnt of the Madhyft Pradesh High Gourt in the matter &f Balu D»oehsmslKulml aotfanotftar v. Fundlbai Amldiand Wittl, Tepovied In AIR 1972 M.P. 22, It has been held that where a suit is filed for a part @f an estate or a share of a estate but where such part or share oftheedat®is not separately asse$sed to land revenue, tie Court fe8»te payable on ttie basis of irwirket yalue, meaiihig tNeroliy that where the sutt tonds ar®separately asseseed'AB land yevenue, the Court fee shall 4»yayabte on t»^Ntt^-»liRUltipte ^resdtbed Le. 20 t(me ©flheteiidfevenue in the present ease. 7. Adnaltedfy, the suit lands are agricuUurat laids assessed to land revenue. Therefore, Court fee would bepayabte @ 20 tlmes of the land revenue assessed and not on ttie mariat value of the suit tand. This Court has held in the matter of Khublal vs. Shanttlal & others, in Misc. Appeal No.10/2010 that for possession of agricultural lands «®8ewe€tto land revenue, court fee need npt be pald on the mait^ ^ilue of the land. 8. Sectton 7(v) ofthe Court-fees Act, 1870 (fer short the Act 1870) as applteable in the State of Chhattisgarh te repredveecfc hereunder (Clause (v) of SecUon 7 of the Act. 187@^ws beert substituted for ite appleation hi ttie State of Madhya PFadesh/Chhattisgarh by Madhya Pradesh/Chh^tisgarh A^ tdo^of1976): "7, Computatlon of fees payabte In certein suits.- The amount of fee payable uncter this A<^ in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be compuled as follows:- XXX XXX XXX XXX y^ (v) for possession el tonds, houses and gardens.- in sutts fpr possession of (ands, houses and gardens. accorcUng to the vatue efthe subjeet matter; and such walue shall be deemedto be- where 8ub|e©troatter island.and (a) suGh land is assessed to land reveoye or land revenue te payabte in respect of such land - twenty times the land revenue so a^essed or so payable; (b) such land forms a part of (and whNi is assessed to land revenue or in respect of which land revenue is payable tewenty times of the land revenue proportionately worked oyt for such part of land; (c) such land is not assessed to lanit wvenue- twenty times of the land revenye worfeed out at the rate of two rupees per acre". 9. TherequiFementofpaymenteFCouFt-fee&eRttwinailcet value of land, whteh found ptece In Glause (v) of Section 7 of the Act, 1870 prior to tt8 amendnient by the Madhya Pradesh/ChhattlsgarhAct No. 4of 1976 has been done away wtth by the Madhya Pradesh/ehhat^garh amendmei'rt as would be seen in the provision reproduced abov; Thus, in its application to the State of Chhattt^arh, the onty requiremeRt te whether the land for whteh the suit has been fried for possession is assessed to land revenue or not. it is assessed to land revenue, Section 7(v) of the Act, 1870 weutd be applicable and the plaintiff is not reqvired to pay»dvelorem Court-fees on the market vatue oftheland. 10. A similar view has been taken by tNs Court ift fte order dated 18-01-2001 tn ch41 reviston no. 48/2007, (Ravjpal vs. Sint Mumtaz Begum and others). 8. In view of the above, the pr^ent p^ltton is ajtowed. The impugRed order is set aslde. There is no order ast&eosts. Kw Sd/- Prashant KumarMishra Judge