To Tax Justice At Ad Valorem Rates Is Harsh: Allahabad High Court Urges State Government To Reconsider Ad Valorem Court Fees

The Allahabad High Court has urged the State of Uttar Pradesh to reconsider taxing civil justice at ad valorem rates.

The Court observed that the system is harsh and directed an elderly man facing illegal encroachment to seek remedy before a competent Civil Court rather than bypassing jurisdiction.

The Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held, "The apprehensions of the petitioner are not entirely ill-founded, but the law is what it is. The petitioner has to seek his remedies before the Civil Court and cannot ask us to convert the Collector into a Judge trying civil actions for senior citizens. At the same time, we would recommend to the Government to consider ameliorating the hardship caused by taxing civil justice at ad valorem rates. It does not seem to fit into the constitutional scheme. We do no say that Court fee should not be charged, but to tax justice at ad valorem rates is, indeed, harsh."

Advocate Devbratt Yadav appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Girijesh Kumar Tripathi appeared for the Respondents

The Petitioner had purchased plots through a registered sale deed from its recorded Bhumidhar. After the change in the use of the land, a paper mill was established there.

It was the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 7, who was an anti-social element with a criminal background, had his eyes on the said property, and with the passage of time, the paper mill was closed. Respondent No. 7 trespassed into the said property illegally, along with anti-social elements, employing muscle power available at his command, and grabbed the same.

The Petitioner also moved an application seeking remedy to get the property of the petitioner vacated from illegal encroachment done by Respondent No. 7.

The main argument of the Petitioner was long time is consumed by the Civil Courts and, in large measure, on account of the ad valorem system of Court fee leviable on actions instituted before the Civil Court.

The Court said that the Petitioner has already gone to the Civil Court and came back to the High Court again with the same relief.

It was observed, "It is true that on account of various forces operating, most particularly, the litigating public themselves, Civil Courts have been pushed back into a shell from vigorously exercising their plenary jurisdiction. Some of their powers have been grossly curtailed by statutes, excluding their jurisdiction. But none of this would deprive the Civil Court of the jurisdiction, which it rightfully possesses to decide all questions that are civil in nature and grant relief, unless and until, the jurisdiction is expressly, or by necessary implication, barred. The petitioner complains of trespass, and his action would be against a trespasser, seeking to recover possession on the basis of title. The petitioner is almost desperate in approaching us for a second time with the same relief."

The Court added that it was unable to extend any assistance to the petitioner and must require him to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the relief that he seeks.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petition. The Court asked the Registry to send the order to the State Government.

Cause Title: Laxmikant Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and others [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC: 155476-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Devbratt Yadav, Phool Singh Yadav and Ram Pratap Yadav

Respondents: Additional Chief Standing Counsel Girijesh Kumar Tripathi

Click here to read/download the Order