1. Plaintiff in O.S 1467/2006 on the file of 24th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore has filed this writ petition challenging the order on I.A No. 4 dated 10-1-2013 in O.S No. 1467/2006.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court. Plaintiff has filed O.S No. 1467/2006 against the defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendant filed I.A No. 4 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint. It was contended by the defendant that the suit property was not properly valued by the plaintiff and the requisite court-fee was not paid in spite of the note in the order sheet dated 24-2-2010 of the trial Court. Plaintiff resisted the said application and sought for dismissal of the same. After hearing the parties, the trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff in part against which this writ petition is filed by the plaintiff.

3. The undisputed facts are that O.S No. 1467/2006 was instituted by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and injunction with respect to 2 acres 10 guntas of land situated at Sy. No. 77/2 of Kaggadasapura Village. Plaintiff has valued the suit under Section 7(2)(a) r/w Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for brevity) and paid the total court fee of Rs. 50/-. As per the directions issued by the trial Court on 19-2-2010, the office valued the suit and opined that plaintiff has to pay court-fee of Rs. 84,175/- but, later plaintiff got the schedule amended and restricted her claim to 17 guntas in Sy. No. 77/2. The plaintiff paid the court-fee of Rs. 32,875/-. The trial Court after hearing the parties, directed the plaintiffs to value the suit schedule property as per the guideline value prescribed by the Karnataka Government and to file fresh valuation slip.

4. The trial Court provided an opportunity to the plaintiff to correct the value of the suit schedule property within the time fixed by the Court and held that if, the plaintiff fails to comply the order, then it would be appropriate to reject the plaint. Accordingly, allowed I.A No. 4 in part directing the plaintiff to value the suit schedule property as per the guideline value issued by the State of Karnataka and to file fresh valuation slip in accordance with law within 10 days.

5. Assailing the said order, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner contended that the suit schedule property is an agricultural land and as such, provisions of Section 7(2)(a) of the Act are attracted and also relied on the record of rights extract which pertains to the year 2001-02. Further, he contended that the trial Court was wrong in directing the plaintiff to pay the court-fee as per the guideline value prescribed by the Karnataka Government as the schedule property is not converted into non agricultural status, and accordingly, sought for quashing the impugned order by allowing the writ petition.

6. Respondents though served remained unrepresented.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only question that arises for consideration before this Court is, “Whether the court-fee has to be computed under Section 7(2)(a) of the Act as the suit schedule property is an agricultural land assessed to the land revenue or applying the guideline value prescribed by the Karnataka Government?

8. Section 7(2) of the Act reads thus:

“7. Determination of market value: (2) The market value of land in suits falling under Sections 24(a), 24(b), 26(a), 27, 28, 29, 31, 35(1), 35(2), 35(3), 36, 38, 39 or 45 shall be deemed to be.

(a) Where the land forms an entire estate of a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Deputy Commissioner's register as separately assessed with such revenue and such revenue is permanently settled twenty-five times the revenue so payable:

(b) Where the land forms an entire estate of a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid, and such revenue is settled, but not permanently twelve and a half times the revenue so payable.

(c) xxxxxx

(d) Where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above mentioned or the land is a garden or the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not or is land not failing within the foregoing description — the market value of the land.

9. Explanation: The word “estate”, as used in this section means any land subject to the payment of revenue for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement to Government, or which in the absence of such engagement shall have been separately assessed with revenue.”

10. Section 24(b) of the Act reads thus:

Section 24(b): Where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on (rupees one thousand) whichever is higher.

11. Section 20(c) of the Act reads as follows:

Section 26(c): Suits for injunction: In a suit for injunction—

(a) to (b) xxxxxx

(c) in any other case whether the subject matter of the suit has a market value or not fees shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees one thousand, whichever is higher.

12. A conspectus reading of these provisions makes it clear that Section 7(2) of the Act provides for the determination of the market value of the land. If the land is assessable to revenue by paying annual land revenue to the Government, then the provisions of Section 7(2) are attracted otherwise, the provisions of Section 24 are attracted. The arguments of the plaintiff that Kaggadasapura Village being assessed to tax as an agricultural land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the land is not converted for non agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, as such the provisions of Section 7(2) attracts and not Section 24, though sounds attractive is not acceptable as the suit schedule property situated in Kagadasapura, falls within the smaller urban area to be called as City Municipal Area of Krishnarajapura as per the notification dated 22-1-1996 issued by the Government of Karnataka under Section 3 read with Section 9 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The plaint averments also supports the same and the same is extracted below:

“In accordance with the wishes of his adopted parents and as the consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand only) has been received, Sundar Babu executed a deed of sale in favour of the petitioner on 18-6-2001, which has been duly registered as document No. 3209 of Book I volume 2037 pages 197-203 in the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, K.R Puram, Bangalore. The petitioner has been in actual and factual possession of the property. The khatha has been made out in her name and taxes are being paid by her.”

13. The RTC extract of the year 2001-02 relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff has no bearing as this suit is instituted in the year 2006. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment reported in (1995) 1 SCC 295 : AIR 1995 SC 234 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

14. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of J. Narayana, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60 has held as under:

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. It is not disputed that the suit property stands included within the Corporation limits in terms of a notification issued much earlier to the filing of the suit. As a result of such inclusion the taxes applicable within the Corporation limits would be operation of law and in particular Section 4, sub-section (4) of the Municipal Corporation Act become applicable to the extended area also. Even assuming that the land in question was agricultural land before its inclusion in the Corporation limits, the same would not necessarily mean that it either continues to pay land revenue nor would such land be exempted from payment of property tax under the said Act. As rightly pointed out by Mrs. Patil, Section 110 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, exempts the payment of property tax qua only such lands as are registered to be agricultural lands in revenue records of Government and as are actually used for cultivation of crops. Stated conversely just because certain land included in the Corporation limits is registered or used for cultivation purposes would not imply that the said land continues to pay land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. On the contrary Land Revenue Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the land is brought within the Corporation limits.

6. There is another angle from which the issue can be viewed. Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 creates a legal fiction regarding the market value of lands that form an entire estate or a definite share of an estate are concerned. A closer reading of Section 7(2)(b) would show that not only should the land be an entire estate or a definite share of an estate, but it must be paying annual revenue to the Government. The expression “paying annual revenue to the Government” in Section 7(2)(b) is significant and in our opinion implies that the liability to pay land revenue must be clear and subsisting one. In cases where such liability ceases to exist on account of incorporation of the area within the limits of a Municipal Corporation, the land cannot be said to be paying annual revenue to the Government. That is because the liability to pay any such revenue must be deemed to have ceased from the moment the land is included in the extended Corporation limits.

15. In view of the said ruling it is clear that, Land Revenue Act ceases to apply where the agricultural lands are included in the extended corporation limits, irrespective of the fact that agricultural lands are converted into non-agricultural purposes or not. Hence, no exeception can be made with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall comply the order passed by the trial Court within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

16. Petition dismissed.