The Allahabad High Court recently called the practice of levying court fees at ad valorem rates in civil cases harsh, and recommended that the government consider easing the financial burden on litigants. The observation came during a hearing of a petition filed by a 70-year-old man, Laxmikant Aggarwal, who alleged encroachment of his property, a paper mill in Kanpur Dehat’s Visayakpur Raniya village.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla made the remarks while examining the case. Ad valorem court fees are calculated as a percentage of the monetary value of the dispute, meaning the higher the claim, the more it costs to file a case.
Petitioner’s argument against civil court
Aggarwal argued that he could not approach a civil court because the process is time-consuming and he cannot afford the court fees at the ad valorem rate. The Court acknowledged that his concerns were “not entirely ill-founded” but noted that the law currently requires him to pursue that route.
Related: J&K High Court Orders New Report On Religious Institutions’ Land Grab In Kashmir
“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,” the Bench observed.
The petitioner had earlier approached the District Magistrate of Kanpur Dehat seeking restoration of his property, claiming it was encroached upon by a person with criminal antecedents. No action was taken on that application, he told the court.
This was not Aggarwal’s first attempt at legal recourse. The Court noted he had filed a writ petition previously, which was declined, with the court directing him to approach a civil court. The present petition sought similar relief but with a different request — a direction to the District Magistrate to hold an inquiry under Rules 21 and 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, for protection of life and property.
For a senior citizen, the prospect of starting fresh litigation in a civil court is not just about money. It also involves handling a system that can take years to resolve property disputes, and the high upfront cost of ad valorem fees can effectively shut the door on justice for those with limited means.
Related: Aston Martin creditors eye legal challenge over sale
Court’s position on civil court jurisdiction
The Bench acknowledged the problems people face in civil courts, including issues that arise from their own actions. “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 Court added.
The Bench observed that Aggarwal ultimately seeks to recover possession of title from a trespasser. He must seek his remedies before a civil court, and the High Court cannot convert the Collector into a judge trying civil actions for senior citizens.
The petition was dismissed without relief. “Given the totality of circumstances, we regret that we are 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,” the Bench said. Advocates Devbratt Yadav, Phool Singh Yadav and Ram Pratap Yadav represented the petitioner, while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Girijesh Kumar Tripathi appeared for the State.
