Suits for possession must adhere to specific statutory valuation methods, rejecting reliance on market value in determining court fees.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.12 of 2012 To CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.44 of 2012 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? ========================================= SHRENIKBHAI KASTURBHAI TRUSTEE OF THE AHMEDABAD EDUCATION & 2 - Applicant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================= Appearance: MR SAURABH N SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE with MR AMAR N BHATT for Applicant(s):

1 - 3.

MR MIHIR BHATT, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent(s): 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s): 1 - 2.

========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Date : 09/03/2012 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, Mr. Amar Bhatt, learned advocate for 2/12 JUDGMENT the revisionists seeks permission to delete respondent No.2 in Civil Revision Applications No.18/2012, 22/2012, 23/2012, 26/2012, 31/2012, 32/2012, 33/2012, 34/2012, 37/2012 and 42/2012. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. Respondent No.2 shall stand deleted from the array of respondents in each of the above referred revision applications.

2. Each of these revisions challenge identically worded orders dated 20th October, 2011 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Court Fees Reference No.82/2010 in Civil Suit-CCC/949/2008 and other cognate matters.

3. Since all the matters involve identical issues, the matters were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Rule. Mr. Mihir Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 in each of the revisions. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts as appearing in respect of Court Fees Reference No.82/2010.

5. The revisionists – plaintiffs instituted various suits in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad seeking a declaration that the defendants therein are in possession of the suit land as trespassers and that their possession is illegal and seeking a direction against the defendants to remove the construction thereon at their own cost and hand over the possession to the plaintiffs; and in case the defendants do not remove the construction, the same should be got removed by appointing a 3/12 JUDGMENT Court Commissioner; or in the alternative, the possession of the suit land be handed over to the plaintiffs alongwith the construction thereon. Initially, the plaintiffs had prayed for mesne profit at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month per square metre from the defendant for illegal use of the suit land.

However, subsequently, the said prayer came to be deleted.

6. In the said suit, the Inspecting Officer (Court Fee) drew the attention of the court to the averments made in the plaint to contend that the plaintiff had not valued the suit properly for the purpose of court fee stamp and had paid insufficient court fee in each of the suits. According to the Inspecting Officer, the plaintiff had not valued the property at market value and that the plaintiff was required to pay a higher court fee stamp whereas the plaintiff had paid a very nominal amount. Thu