The petitioner seeking possession over land with existing constructions in an approved colony in the Municipal area is liable to pay ad-valorem court fee based on the market value of the property.

JUDGMENT :

GURBIR SINGH, J.

1. Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the orders dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) and dated 06.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal in a Civil Suit No. 333/2019, dated 08.02.2019 titled as Kulbir Singh vs. Parmod Gupta and Others, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit land.

2. In brief the facts as culled out from the petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred as “plaintiff”) filed a suit for possession of property as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Upon notice, some of the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred as “defendants) appeared and filed two applications i.e. one application dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-4) by defendants No. 4 and 18 and the other application dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) by defendants No. 6 to 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22, 23, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that appropriate court fee has not been affixed by the plaintiff at the time of presentation of plaint. Vide order dated 06.01.2020, said prayer of defendants was allowed and the plaintiff was held liable to affix court fee on the plaint as per the market value of suit property and thereafter, court proceeded to determine market value of the suit property. The plaintiff examined Charanjit, Clerk of Registry, office of Sub-Tehsil Gharaunda as PW1, who proved copy of collector rate as Ex.PX. On the other hand, defendants examined Bhagat Ram, defendant No. 18, as DW1; Mr. Nitin Goyal, Civil Engineer/Expert as DW2 and Mr. Abhi Sharma, Sales Officer, ICICI Bank as DW3. The defendants produced the documentary evidence as Ex.D1-certificate; Ex.D2-office order; Exs.D3 to D6-photographs of property; Ex.D8-Valuation report by a registered valuer; Ex.D9-Loan application; Ex.D10-Valuation report; Ex.D11-Loan account statement; Ex.D12-Mutation No. 1414, dated 27.07.2021; Ex.D13-Mutation No. 584, dated 27.06.2023.

3. After appreciating the evidence, learned trial Court, vide order dated 25.10.2023, assessed the market value of the suit property as Rs.23,61,03,225/- and the plaintiff was directed to pay the court fee as per the assessed market value of the suit land.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner-plaintiff is seeking possession of the suit property on the basis of title. The respondents-defendants are mere trespassers. Some of the defendants have constructed kacha shops on the front portion of the said property and at the back portion, some kacha residential houses have been constructed and remaining area of suit property lying vacant. The demarcation had been conducted through Total Station Machine. Plaintiff remained busy in getting demarcation report and in the meantime, defendants after demolition of their kacha constructions, raised construction of their pucca houses, shops etc. It is submitted that the defendants have unauthorizedly occupied suit property, so the plaintiff is not bound to affix ad-valorem court fee on the market value of the suit land. The plaintiff has sought possession of only vacant land after demolishing the construction raised over the suit land which is an agricultural land and as such, the plaintiff is liable to affix the court fee as per the provisions applicable for the agricultural land and for which appropriate court fee has already been affixed with the plaint. It is further contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly. DW2-Nitin Goyal admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see sale deed of any shop or the house. He had perused the Collector rate of suit land online. He did not take into consideration the Collector rate of the suit land for the year 2015-16 but he mentioned the collector value of the suit land for the year 2021-22. DW3