Ayeshabegum Died Through Legal Heirs Karimkha Habibkha Pathan & Ors. vs Shaikh Ismail Shaikh Salim & Ors.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, matter is heard finally at admission stage.

The present petition takes exception to order dated 16.01.2026 passed below Exhibit-69 by Civil Judge Junior Division, Jintoor in Regular Civil Suit No.29/2021, whereby petitioners are directed to make valuation of suit as per Section 6(v) of Maharashtra Court Fees Act by treating suit property as non-agricultural land.

The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No.29/2021 seeking relief of possession of land to the extent of 96R from Survey No.22/B as per boundaries specified therein by removing construction undertaken by defendants. The petitioners have also sought relief of declaration that agreement to sale dated 27.04.2016 executed by petitioners in favour of defendant no.1 is invalid and not binding on their rights. The respondent nos.1 to 3/defendants caused appearance in suit and filed application below Exhibit-69 to conduct enquiry regarding valuation of suit for purpose of court fees and jurisdiction and direction to petitioners to pay necessary court fees, else reject plaint. In pursuant to said application, impugned order came to be passed.

The learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that suit land is part of agricultural land in Gut No.22/B. The defendants are raising unauthorized construction over suit land. Therefore, suit is instituted for possession after removal of unauthorized construction raised by defendants encroaching over suit property. Apart from that, petitioners have sought declaration that agreement to sale dated 27.04.2016 is invalid and not binding upon rights of plaintiffs. The Trial Court observed in paragraph no.9 of impugned order that plaintiff has specifically pleaded in hall over suit property. As such, suit property is used for non-agricultural purpose by defendants. In this backdrop, looking to law laid down by this Court in case of Sardar Gurupreetsingh Pander Vs. Sangeeta and Ors. (Writ Petition No.8225/2020 decided on 03.01.2022), suit required to be valued for purpose of court fees and jurisdiction as per market value by treating suit property as non-agricultural property. Eventually, directions are issued to value suit property in terms of Section 6(v) of Maharashtra Court Fees Act.

This Court finds that till this date, suit property is recorded as agricultural land with Revenue Authorities. It is not converted to non-agricultural use. Only because defendants have encroached upon suit property and raising construction of marriage hall, property cannot be said to be put to non-agricultural use, unless it has been converted for non-agricultural use by following procedure contemplated under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Therefore, observations of Trial Court that plaintiffs/petitioners pleaded about ongoing construction at the hands of defendants, land cannot be treated to have put for non-agricultural use. The plaintiffs/petitioners have, therefore, rightly valued suit treating property as agricultural land.

The observations of this Court in case of Sardar Gurupreetsingh Pander (supra) cannot be applied in facts of present case. In that case, property was already put for non-agricultural use by original owners and bungalow was constructed alongwith brick kiln. In present case, defendants are in attempt of making illegal construction of marriage hall.

The petitioners have claimed additional relief of declaration that agreement to sale dated 27.04.2016 to be invalid and not binding upon rights of plaintiffs.

Mr. M. M. Patil Beedkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondents brought to notice of this Court copy of agreement to sale dated 26.04.2016, wherein suit property is valued to Rs.6,00,000/- by plaintiffs.

This Court finds that plaintiffs will have to pay court fees in terms of Section 6(iv)(ha), which stipulates that valuation of suit and quantification of court fees in respect of avoidance of sale/contract for sale for which one half of ad valorem fee leviable on value of the property is prescribed. This Court finds substance in contention of Mr. Patil that so far as relief of declaration in respect of agreement to sale, petitioners will have to pay one half of ad valorem fee leviable on value of property. Since agreement itself stipulates valuation of property as Rs.6,00,000/-, petitioner will have to pay one half of court fee on said valuation for relief of declaration as regards to agreement to sale dated 26.04.2016.

Hence, following order:

a. Writ Petition is partly allowed.

b. The impugned order dated 16.01.2026 passed below Exhibit-69 by Civil Judge Junior Division, Jintoor in Regular Civil Suit No.29/2021 is modified.

c. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall make valuation of suit for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction by treating suit property as agricultural land. However, for purpose of relief of declaration in respect of agreement to sale dated 26.04.2016, petitioners shall value suit for purpose of court fee in terms of Section 6(iv)(ha) of Maharashtra Court Fees Act.

d. Rule is made absolute in above terms.