Back
Senior Citizen’s Land Grabbing Plea: Recommends Reconsideration of Ad Valorem Fees
When 70-year-old Laxmikant Aggarwal approached the
for the second time, seeking protection of his paper mill property from an alleged land grabber with a criminal record, he was hoping for a different outcome. Instead, the Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla once again directed him to approach the civil court. However, in a notable silver lining, the bench issued a strong recommendation to the
to reconsider the
, calling it "indeed, harsh" and
"not...fit into the
."
A 70-Year-Old's Desperate Plea
Aggarwal had purchased two plots in Village Visayakpur Raniya, Kanpur Dehat, in from recorded bhumidhar Smt. Suryakali. After mutation, the land was converted to commercial use in , and a paper mill, L Kant Paper Mill, was established. The mill later closed down, and according to Aggarwal, one Amrish Pratap Singh alias Annu Singh, an alleged anti-social element with seven criminal cases against him, trespassed onto the property and forcefully grabbed it.
As a senior citizen, Aggarwal claimed he was unable to physically resist or engage in prolonged litigation. He moved applications before the and even the Chief Minister, but to no avail.
The Court's Surprise at the Government Order
Aggarwal’s petition relied on a Government Order dated , which set up at the tahsil and district levels, empowered to inquire into and forcibly vacate encroached land. The court was taken aback by this order, observing:
“We are surprised that a Government Order has come to be issued, virtually transferring judicial power of the State to an administrative committee by an executive order.”
The court noted that the legality of this order was already under challenge in another .
Why the Petitioner Avoided Civil Court
Aggarwal had earlier filed Writ-C No. 8209 of , seeking enforcement of the same government order. That petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the civil court. Undeterred, he filed the present petition, this time invoking the .
His reluctance to go to civil court was based on two grounds: the time-consuming nature of civil litigation and the burden of —a percentage of the property’s value. The bench acknowledged that his apprehensions “are not entirely ill-founded, but the law is what it is.”
'Taxing Justice at is Indeed Harsh'
The most significant part of the judgment was the bench’s comments on the . It stated:
“At the same time, we would recommend to the Government to consider ameliorating the hardship caused by . It does not seem to fit into the . We do no say that Court fee should not be charged, but to tax justice at is, indeed, harsh.”
This observation, while not a , carries weight from a high court bench and could prompt the state government to revisit its fee structure for civil suits.
Dismissed But With a Significant Recommendation
The court dismissed Aggarwal’s petition, reiterating that he must seek his remedy before the . It refused to convert the Collector into a judge for senior citizens. However, the judgment was communicated to the , the , and the for the government’s consideration of the ad valorem issue.
This case highlights the tension between providing affordable access to justice and maintaining the civil court’s jurisdiction. While the senior citizen’s immediate grievance remains unaddressed in the high court, the recommendation against may have far-reaching implications for future litigants in Uttar Pradesh.
