Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri I.S. Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Gram Sabha.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, this writ petition is being finally heard without calling for a counter-affidavit.

Facts

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioners filed O.S. No. 91 of 2016 (Sohan Yadav and others v. Gram Sabha, Mahrajganj and another) seeking declaration and permanent injunction with respect to certain Khasra plots of Village - Mahrajganj, Tappa - Marachchi Chandaur, Pargana - Haveli, Tehsil - Sadar, District Gorakhpur. Fixed Court Fees was paid by them in terms of the provisions of Article 17(iii) of Schedule II and Section 7(iv-B)(b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 being Rs. 200 + Rs.500, total Rs.700. The Munsirim submitted a report for deficiency of Court Fees. Petitioners objected to the Munsirim’s report as incorrect. The question was adjudicated by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Gorakhpur, by order dated 25.2.2016, whereby he held that for a suit seeking relief for declaration and permanent injunction Court Fees is payable on ad valorem basis on market value of the property. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order the petitioners filed a civil revision No. 56 of 2016 (Sohan Yadav and others v. Gram Sabha, Mahrajganj and another) which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge Court No. 6, Gorakhpur, by the impugned order dated 19.9.2017. Aggrieved with these two orders, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

Submissions

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per plaint the relief for declaration and permanent injunction have been sought and as such fixed Court Fees is payable in terms of the provisions of Article 17(iii) of Schedule II and Section 7 (iv-B)(b) of the Act. He submits that provisions of Section 7(iv-A) is not applicable on the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioners are not seeking relief for cancellation of instrument or of adjudging void or voidable decree for money or other property having a market value or an instrument securing money or other property. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, deserves to be set aside and a direction deserves to be issued that Court Fees has been correctly paid.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel fairly admits that as per copy of the plaint filed alongwith writ petition, the relief has been sought by the petitioners for declaration and permanent injunction which attracts fixed Court Fees and that the issue is covered by Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P. Allahabad v. Mahanth Laxmi Narain, AIR 1970 (All) 488.

Discussion and Findings

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is not in dispute that as per plaint the petitioners have sought the relief for declaration and permanent injunction. Provisions relevant for the purpose of present controversy are Section 7(iv)(a) and Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Act which are reproduced below :

Relevant provisions

“Section 7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits for money :

The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suit next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:

(i) ..........

(ii-a) .........

(ii-b)...........

(iii).............

(iv) In suits-(a) For declaratory decree with consequential relief : to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief other than reliefs specified in sub-section (iv-A) is prayed; and

For accounts.—(b) For accounts according to the am