STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HEIRS OF RAMSINGH LAXMANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 14 - herein filed suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 1986 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Rajpipla inter alia praying that the plaintiff was owner and in possession of the land in question and defendants No. 1 to 13 be restrained from receiving amount of compensation or part thereof from the appropriate authority. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had purchased the land of Survey No. 333 admeasuring 5 acres and 36 gunthas of village Shaherav by registered sale deed dated 11/04/1975 for consideration of Rs. 10 499 However in the revenue record the entry has not been mutated in favour of the plaintiff since there was some encumbrance on the land of some co-operative society. The land has been acquired by the Government for the purposes of Karjan Irrigation Scheme. The plaintiff has requested the Land Acquisition Officer not to make payment of the amount of compensation to the defendants. Since the plaintiff apprehended that the amount may be paid to the defendants the plaintiff has filed the suit with the prayer as stated hereinabove. The Inspector of Court Fees attached to the Court examined the plaint and found that the Court fees of Rs 30/-only paid on the memo of the plaint was not sufficient.

(2.) As per the report submitted by the Inspector of Court Fees the plaintiff was required to make payment of Court fees on the amount of value of compensation of the land. On this basis the Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) Surat made report to the learned Joint Civil Judge Rajpipla.

(3.) The learned Joint Civil Judge J. D. Rajpipla as per his order dated 31/08/1988 rejected the reference made by the Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) on the ground that the relief claimed was that of injunction and it was falling within the scope of clause (iii)(j) and therefore the Court fees of Rs. 30.00 paid was proper. It is not under-stood how the learned Judge has written clause (iii)(j). Probably it appears he refers to Clause 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 inasmuch as there is no provision in the Bombay Court Fees Act which can be referred to simply as clause (iii)(j). The learned Conceal for the petitioners submitted that the appropriate Article of Court Fees Act applicable would be Art. 7 of Schedule I. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent-original plaintiff submits that the provisions of Art. 23(f) of Schedule II or the provisions of Sec. 6 (iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act would be applicable. Article 23(f) of Schedule II and the provisions of Sec. 6(iv)(j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 read as follow : SCHEDULE-II :