Syed Iqbal Ahmad v. Smt. Vineeta Gupta & Ors.

4. It is not in dispute that snce the petitioner has claimed relief.df pc:session, declaration and permarent-injunctioTi etc;. the suit was to be valued ad va!orem on the basis of market vlue of the property, for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee. The learned Civil Judge found that the, suit has been highly undervalued. The suit was for possession and decjaration and the rate of, the land as given bythe petitoner at Rs.300 per, sq. yards in a prime area oI.North Dehi fallind at G.T. KarriaiRad was much below the market value. The suit was filed in the year 2007. Leatned Civi Judge observed that on the basis of circle rzite of the, area, the value of land in that area would be around Rs.20,000/ per sq. yards and, therefore, the suit was higlii' undervalL!ed and he returned the pliint to plaintiff so that the plaintiff may appropriatelyvaIue the suit for the purpoa of j'risdiction and Court fee and file the same in appropriate, court., Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of ADJ and took the pa that it was the discretion or the petitione to value the suit for the purposes of jurisc1icron and the coüt Fee and the petitioner Page 9O'2 -."k ' --had correctly valued the siit:- Theother plea taken 'by the petitioner was that once the learned ADJ had returned the plaint on the ground that the Civil Judgehas jurisdiction, this decision of learned ADJ became res judicata and the Civil Judge.had no right to return the suit. Both these pleas did not find favour with the learned tADJ and the learned ADJ dismissed the appeal observing that the previous order of learned ADJ returning the plaint would not amount to res judicata and the Civil Judge had jurisdiction to determine the issue of court fee and jurisdiction. He also came to conclusion that the learned Civil Judge rightly returned the plaint since the plaint was high!y undervalued. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned ADJ as well as learned Cvil Judge went wrong in considering the market value of the property on the basis of circle rates. It is submitted that the circle rate was not reflective of. the true value of the property. The value of the land which he ciaimed has to be determined on the basis' of award of Lana Acquisition Collector passed in respect to the adjoining -and acquired by the Government, while this land of the petitioner was not - acquired. He placed a copy of award in respect of adjoining land and stated that his valuation was a correct valuation.. Sub-sections of section 7 of The Court Fees Act contemplate three modes of valuation of subiet mattei. These are: (i) market vaiue viz, market value of the property or claim, (ii) suheçt matter of the suit with no market value, or (iii) estimate by plaintiff or.accorthg to-amount at which reef sought is 'akJ. Thereis no doubt that a suit for property qua which the relief of possession and declaration is so!igbt, the valuatiQn has to be •cne on the basis- of rnarket'ialce of the prcertv on the date of filing of the suit. The plea of petitioners counsel that the valuation hs to be on the basis of award of the ac!joinir.g 'and is a baseless i,nlea. The award relied upon by the petitioner is in respect of year 1964 '.'a!uing the lard as on 196 4. The ward itself SiVW'S thatthe valuation ri the award was as on the date of acquisition - - 'Page ]Of12. /4 i.e. of 1964. Thus, the valationof.1964bf the a'iculturai land of that area cannot be the market value of a plot of' land falling in residential colony in the year 2007, the possession of which is now.sought by the petitioner. Since the petitioner is seeking possession in the year 2007 of a plot of land from the respondent. which falls in residential colony and claims ownership over this plot of land (whatever be the basis of his claim) he has to value the suit in accordance with the market valOe of land as on date of filing of the suit. The petitioner has placed orL record one award in respect of land at Burari, Delhi. This award is 02LAC,J'N/05-06 whereby the land was acquired for biOdiversity park in the year January 2004..This.award filed by the, petitioner shows that the land acquired by LAC of VIII ge irari was a vacant land and it1was not a land of residential colony. Even this and was acquired @ Rs.10;000/-.Per sq. yards inJanuary, 2004. "Eveli 'joing by this a yard, which the petitioner himself relies the value of land of 400 sq yards of land in t ie residcntialcolony FaIling on GT Kárnal Rod, a known industrial and residential re of North Delhi, would be much more in 2003-04 than Rs.10,000/- per sq yards. The circle rate as determined by t e government in the year 2007 was Rs.21,800/-' per.q. yards in resject of the I nd in question' i.e. Mahendroo Enclave. The contention of counsel for petitioner that the circle rate was not reflective of, the true value is absolutely correct. The circle rte.ilways piuth less tlan the actu! prevalent rnaket rates. Even this crcic.rate[5] w nhreflectiveo tr[2] V3!ue or 2007 4 • in the area as in actuality the market rate-ir the area vias much more than Rs.[1] ac per sq yards approximately. The petitidners valuing of the suit a Rs.300/- per sq yards was unrealistic and the learned Civil Judge as. well as the learned ADJ rightly came to conclusion that this valjat;on was to be rejected. 'It is settle. aw that iurisdic:cn and he Court fee does not depend onthë form of pled'ngs. 'but depends on the real subst3nce of relief clamed. Under Section 7 (v).ofTie C ur't Fees Act, asiiit whc posscsion of Pa IOr 12 land! house is prayed for, tice'aluation h s to be done as per the market value prevalent at that timeTThe jurisdiction, of he Couf iis basic concern of the Court, whether or not an objection is raised by the defendant. The Court is supposed to consider jurisdictional. arid court fee aspec beforecOrrmencing the trial of a case and ensure that It has jurisdiction to proced wth tie case. It is net adyisabl that the Court should, after holdng the ertire t ia come to a conclusion that it r.ad no jurisdiction to cnduct the trial in the case In view of my fôregong di3cussion, I cos!der that all the abnvc retitons must fail;There is no inflrinity in the orders of earned Civil Judge as wet! as of learned ADJ. The suits fied by the petitioner were deliberately undervalued in cider to evade the - court fee and to pac[2] the iattr befor2the. Court of wrong jurisdiction. The were riçtly rturnd to the pla!ntff(e iicr!e.:.rer,) t be pro.e1y. viued ri affixing propi coLlrt In the result, the abce 3t-:) s. are iereby disr sed PV NA 4 R[5] rd - P[3] 12 -Of 12 -k