ORDER :

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition against the orders dated 10.5.2022 and 22.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Rajpur, in unregistered civil suit, whereby prior to registration of civil suit the trial Court has directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay requisite court fees as per market value of the land though the land is pertaining to agricultural land.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and injunction on the basis of joint family property. The land in question was revenue paying land, therefore, the suit was valued on the basis of land revenue, to which valuation was made. However, prior to registration of civil suit, erroneous suo-moto objection was raised by the trial Court with regard to payment of requisite court fees. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are arbitrary, illegal and against the eye of law, which deserve to be quashed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with writ petition.

5. In the matter of Basant Kumar v. Ved Prakash and others reported in 2014 SCC Online MP 2209, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that when the suit for possession of a land assessed to land revenue, the plaintiff is only required to pay court fees on the basis of the land revenue. The relevant paras read thus:-

“8. Section 7(v)(a) of the Court Fees Act contemplates a provision for the matter of payment of court fees in suit for possession of lands, houses and gardens and the said section reads as under:

Section 7(v). For possession of lands, houses and gardens.- In suits for possession of lands, houses and gardens, according to the value of the subject matter, and such value shall be deemed to be where subject matter is land; and

(a) such land is assessed to land revenue or land revenue is payable in respect of such land-twenty times the land revenue so assessed or so payable;

(b) such land forms a part of land which is assessed to land revenue or in respect of which land revenue is payable twenty times of the land revenue proportionately worked out for such part of land;

(c) such land is not assessed to land revenue-twenty times of the land revenue worked out at the rate of five rupees per acre.

Similarly section 7(vi-a) contemplates a provision for payment of court fee in suit for partition and the same reads as under:

Section 7(vi-a). in suits for partition.-

(a) according to one half of the value of the plaintiffs share of the property; and

(b) according to the full value of such share if on the date of presenting the plaint the plaintiff is out of possession of the property of which he claims to be a co-parcener or co-owner, and his claim to be a co-parcener or co-owner on such date is denied.

9. If the plaint filed by the petitioner Annexure-P/2 is taken note of, it would be seen that the property in question is an agricultural land which is the ancestral property of the family and petitioner is claiming possession of the land based on his right to the property.

10. In the case of Bhagwati (supra) the provision of the Court fees Act has been taken note of and it has been held in the aforesaid case that in the suit for possession of a land assessed to land revenue, the plaintiff is only required to pay twenty times of the land revenue as court fee. It is held that if the plaintiff is out of possession he will be required to pay court fee on the actual market value. Based on the aforesaid judgment in the case of Narayan Prasad (supra) also various other judgments have been taken note of and decided the matter in the following manner:-

In the matter of Bhagwati vs. Chamar Rai, 1980(II) MPWN Note 22, wherein the suit was instituted for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit lands which are separately assessed to land revenue, this Court held that perusal of clause (vi-a) of s