High Court

Legal Reasoning

(1) 920-cra-160-2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2023Vijay Pralhad Baviskar(Owner of Gat No.686/5) Age: 49 years, Occu. Service & Agriculture, R/o. "Ramraksha", Mundada Nagar, Opp. Water Tank, Amalner, Taluka - Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon...Applicant(Orig. Defendant No.6)Versus1.Ravindra Gangadhar MahajanAge: 55 years, Occu. Agriculture & Business, R/o. "Suyash", Plot No.59, Survey No.412, Near Mehrun Talav, Opp. Saint Teresa School, Shirsoli Road, Jalgaon, Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon.2.Hemant Yadav ZopeAge: 51 years, Occu. Agriculture & Business, R/o. 3/B, Patel Nagar, Near Bhagirath School, Post Office Road, Behind Collector Bunglow, Jalgaon, Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon.3.The Collector Jalgaon, Jalgaon,Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon.4.The Sub Divisional Officer,Amalner, Amalner, Taluka- Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.5.The Tahsildar, Parola,Tal. Parola, District-Jalgaon.6.The Land Acquisition Officer,National Highway No.6, Jalgaon, Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon.7.The Superintendentof Land Records (City Survey), Parola, Tal. Parola, District -Jalgaon.8.Khandu Chindhu BhilAge: 80 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Bhabhalenag, Taluka - Parola, District – Jalgaon...Respondents(Nos.1 and 2 – Orig. Plaintiffs, Nos.3 to 8 – Org. Deft.Nos.1 to 5 and 7.) (2) 920-cra-160-2023.odt...Mr. Girish S. Rane, Advocate for the Applicant.Mr. D. B. Bhange, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 7.Mr. Anand I. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.Mr. P. V. Barde h/f Mr. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for RespondentNo.8.... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.DATED 03rd DECEMBER, 2024.P.C.:- 1.The applicant impugns order dated 06.09.2022 passed byCivil Judge Senior Division, Amalner, thereby rejecting applicationat Exhibit-38 in Regular Civil Suit No.79/2021.2.The respondent nos.1 and 2 instituted Regular Civil SuitNo.79/2021 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amalner. It iscontention of the respondents (original plaintiffs) that land bearingGut No.686/3 has been purchased by them under registered saledeed dated 30.12.2014. Since then, they are in possession of theland. The land is abutting to National Highway No.6, which isunder widening by National Highway Authority. The Northernportion of the plaintiffs' land has been acquired by defendants,therefore, plaintiffs are entitled for compensation. However,defendant nos.6 and 7 in collusion with authorities are trying tograb the compensation. The plaintiffs have raised dispute with thecompetent authorities. However, cognizance of their complaint isnot taken. The plaintiffs further contend that defendant nos.1 to 5needs to be restrained from releasing compensation amount infavour of respondent no.6. Ultimately, prayer is made in the suitseeking declaration that defendant no.6 is not entitled to claimcompensation towards acquisition of lands based on incorrectboundaries shown in the sale deed. Consequently, decree ofperpetual injunction is also sought against defendant nos.1 to 5 (3) 920-cra-160-2023.odtfrom releasing any sort of compensation towards acquisition ofland. 3.The applicant who is respondent no.6 appeared before theCourt in pursuance to the suit summons and filed applicationunder Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedureincorporating prayer that plaintiffs be directed to revaluate thesuit as per amount of compensation and pay Court Fees on saidamount. In case, plaintiffs fails to pay Court fees as per valuation,plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of CivilProcedure.4.The Trial Court after considering the submissions advancedby respective parties, concluded that averment in the plaint depictsthat provision of Section 6(iv)(j) would apply in the suit and suit isappropriately valued. Therefore, rejected application.5.Mr. Rane, learned Advocate appearing for the applicantrelying upon the observation of the Division Bench of this Court incase of Gulam Mohamed Yunus and Another Vs. LalchandChelaran and Others1 (para no.12), Mohan Meakin BreweriesLtd. Vs. Oceanic Imports and Exports Corporation andAnother2 (para no.6) and Vinod Vyankat Narsaiyya Gannu Vs.Sunil S/o. Diwakar Poshettiwar and Others3 submits thatcomplete reading of the plaint clearly demonstrate that plaintiff isinterested in the compensation amount i.e. determined byauthorities towards acquisition of land. He seeks prohibitoryinjunction against authorities from releasing said amount. Theclaim in the suit is camouflage, whereby prayer is incorporated fordeclaration and injunction without appropriately valuing the suit.1AIR 1976 BOMBAY 389.21980 Mh.L.J. 803.32004 (4) Mh.L.J. 245. (4) 920-cra-160-2023.odtHe would submit that under the pretext of suit of declaration andinjunction, plaintiff is seeking prohibitory order from releasingcompensation amount, which is already determined. Therefore,suit needs to be valued in terms of Article 7 of Schedule I of theMaharashtra Court Fees Act.6.Per contra, Mr. Anand Deshmukh, learned Advocateappearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 justifies the order of TrialCourt stating that plaintiffs are asserting their own rights inrespect of land acquired for widening of highway and, therefore, tilldecision over such rights, decree of perpetual injunction is soughtagainst release of compensation amount. According to him, suitvaluation is appropriately made and Section 6(iv)(j) would governthe suit.7.Having considered submissions advanced and law laid downby this Court in judgments referred above, the legal position thatcan be deduced is that if any complaint or petition seekssubstantive relief, which otherwise capable of monetary gain orprevention of monetary gain, suit needs to be dealt with underArticle 7 of Schedule I of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act. Theobjection as regards to valuation of suit appears to have beenraised by defendant no.6 by filing application. However, TrialCourt superficially looked to the pleadings and prayers in suitwithout getting into details of actual relief sought by the plaintiffs.The impugned order nowhere shows that Trial Court has appliedits mind to the contents of plaint and nature and purport of actualrelief sought. If upon reading of entire plaint, the Court comes tothe conclusion that suit is susceptible to the monetary evaluation,although there is no specific claim as regards to amount, it is forthe Court to see that suit is appropriately valued by applying (5) 920-cra-160-2023.odtrelevant Clauses of the legal provisions. The impugned orderappears to be cryptic and sans reasons as to nature of actualpurport of claim in suit. It would be, therefore, appropriate in theinterest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order anddirect Trial Court to reconsider application below Exhibit-38keeping in mind principle of law espoused by this Court in thejudgments referred above. Hence, following order is passed:ORDERa.Civil Revision Application is partly allowed.b.The impugned order dated dated 06.09.2022 passed by CivilJudge Senior Division, Amalner, thereby rejecting application atExhibit-38 in Regular Civil Suit No.79/2021, is hereby quashed andset aside. c.The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court forreconsideration of application at Exhibit-38 by keeping in mindprinciple of law espoused by this Court in judgments referred inparagraph 5 of this order.d.The Trial Court shall expeditiously consider and decide theapplication, in any case, within a period of four months from today.e.Civil Revision Application is disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/December-2024