The plaintiff's valuation of the relief in a suit for declaration and consequential relief should be accepted, as provided under Section 7 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, and the value for jurisdiction should be determined accordingly.

   1. Heard Mr. B.K. Deb Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. By this revision petition, the petitioner/plaintiff is assailing the judgment and order of the District Judge, Shillong dated 21-10-2011 for rejecting the FAO No. 3(H) of 2011 filed against the judgment and order of the trial Court i.e. Munsiff at Shillong dated 26-4-2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 35(H) of 2002 (reference T. S. No. 34(H) of 2002), for returning the plaint for the reason that the value of the relief sought for in the plaint is not properly fixed and as a result proper Court fees are not paid and the value of the suit is not correctly fixed for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

3. Over and above, in the judgment and order of the Court below, there is an indication that the respondents/defendants in their pleadings have stated that there is an appropriate forum for the remedy sought for in the plaint.

4. Before considering the adversarial submissions of the parties, it would be beneficial to have a glance of the pleadings of the petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint of the T.S. No. 34(H) of 2002 and the relief sought for in the plaint.

5. The petitioner/plaintiff is a lawful lessee of holding No. 60CB and 60ACB Sy. No. 15/9 situated at Paltan Bazar Lukier Road, Shillong. The petitioner/plaintiff for construction of Residential-cum-Commercial building in the said lessee holding property applied through his valid building application to the Office of the respondent No. 2. After receipt of the said application, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner/plaintiff that on preliminary scrutiny of the building application/plan, it was found that the building plan proposed to be erected is falling within the holding No. 60ACB Sy. No. 15/9 and as such one set of building plan was returned for resubmission after duly incorporating exact Holding No. and Sy. No. of the property.

6. The petitioner/plaintiff also pleaded in the plaint that there are irregularities in issuing the orders/letters by the respondents/defendants for the purposes of deciding this revision petition, it would not be required to mention the pleadings of the petitioner/plaintiff in details. The Court is more concerned with the type of relief sought for in the plaint for deciding the nature/type of the suit no doubt the whole pleadings of the petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint are required to be read. Accordingly, this Court has given anxious consideration of the pleadings of the petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint; and the relief sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint are:--

“(a) Declaring that the building plans as submitted by the plaintiff on 15-12-1993 and prior thereto under Section 179 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 in response to letter dated 30-11-1993 issued by the defendant is valid and fit for accordance of sanction.

(b) Declaring that since the defendant neglected to accord sanction or to refuse sanction of said valid building plan of the plaintiff after receipt of the same and after issue of notice as per provision of Section 181(6) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 it shall be presumed to have been sanctioned by the Board.

(c) Declaring that since the sanction of the building plain was in conformity with the provision of Section 181 (6) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 it cannot be termed as unauthorized.

(d) Declaring that the claim of the defendant that the construction of the plaintiff is unauthorized, is not proper and legal.

(e) Declaring that the imposition of Tax in the plea of unauthorized construction and also imposition of Taxes otherwise is not proper and biased on reasonable calculations in terms of facility to be provided by the Cantonment Board and as such same cannot be levied in any way from the plaintiff.

(f) Declaring that unless the construction of the plaintiff is regularized by the de