ORDER
K.L. Manjunath, J.
Page 1156
1. The matter is listed for orders to take steps to bring the L.Rs of the deceased R-4 and to furnish the correct address of R-7 in order to ascertain whether the respondents 7 and 4 are necessary parties to adjudicate the matter in controversy in this writ petition. The court directed the learned Counsel for the petitioner to narrate the facts of the case. It is disclosed by the parties that suo motu the court has passed an order directing the plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee on the actual market value of the suit property. The plaintiff before the trial court is challenging the order passed by the trial court suo motu in this writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not seeking any relief against R-4 and R-7. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to delete R-4 and R-7.
3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4785/2004 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The suit is instituted by the plaintiff to declare him as an absolute owner of the suit property and that the sale deed executed, by the defendants 1 to 7 in favour of defendants 8 to 10 are without any authority of law and that the defendants 1 to 7 had no title to transfer the suit property and also for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
4. Suit property is an agricultural land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.NO. 35/13 of Govindapura Village, Nagavara Dhakale, Bangalore North Taluk. While computing the court fee payable on the prayers, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the valuation slip and has paid the court fee Under Section 24(b) R/w Section 7(2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act (‘Act’ for short) in regard to declaration of title. So far as the relief of injunction is concerned, the suit is valued Under Section 26(c) of the Act. The defendants on their appearance contended that the suit property is not an agricultural land and it has been converted for non-agricultural purpose. Relying upon the order of conversion dated 20th December 2004 the trial court, suo motu directed the plaintiff to pay the court fee on the market value of the property. This order is called in question in this writ petition.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 26.11.2004 and on the date of institution of the suit, the suit property was an agricultural land and it was not converted Under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, he contends that the order of the trial court treating the suit property as an urban property and calling upon the petitioner to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit Page 1157 property is bad in law. Therefore, he requests this Court to quash the impugned order.
6. Per contra Mr. Naik, learned Counsel for the respondents’ contends that the order of conversion is dated 20th December 2004. On the date of institution of the suit, the petitioner had filed an application for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose. He further contends that the property is situated within the Corporation limits of Bangalore, the petitioner has to value the property as an urban property since it is ceased to be an agricultural land and therefore, the petitioner has to pay the court fee on the market, value of the suit property. To support his arguments, he has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60 (J.M. Narayana and Ors. v. Corporation of The City of Bangalore, By Its Commissioner Office, Bangalore and Ors.)
(B) KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976 – SECTION 110 –
Exemption of payment of property tax under – HELD, If the lands are registered to be agricultural lands in revenue records of Government and are actually used for cultivation of crops, such lands are exempted from payment of property tax. But if such lands are included in the extended corporation limits, the Land Revenue Act could cease to be applicable to such lands. Appellant directed to pay court fee.
7. I have given ray anxious consideration to the above-cited judgment. It is no doubt true that the suit property is situated within the Corporation limits. But, it is not the case of both the parties that the suit property is assessed to the Corporation taxes. On the contrary, in para-8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically stated that defendants 8 to 10 on the basis of the sale deed has transferred the mutation entries in M.R.25/04-05, M.R. No. 27/04-05 and M.R.No. 29/04-05. In addition to these mutation entries, the petitioner has also produced the RTC extract pertaining to the suit property. Therefore, it is clear that though the property is situated within the limits Corporation of City of Bangalore, it has not lost its agricultural character and has not been assessed to the taxes by the Corporation of City of Bangalore. When it is an agricultural land and assessment is collected by the revenue authorities and when the RTC extracts show that it is an agricultural land and when the property is not assessed to the Corporation taxes and more particularly as on the date of suit when the land has not been converted from agricultural into non-agricultural, it cannot be said that the suit property is ceased to be an agricultural land. If the property is converted subsequent to filing of the suit or if an application had been filed by the plaintiff for conversion on the date of institution of the suit, it cannot be said that the suit property has lost its agricultural character and cannot be valued as an agricultural Page 1158 property. The date of conversion would be prospective and it would not be from the date of the application and would come into effect only from the date of issuance of the official memorandum of conversion from agricultural into non-agricultural. The trial court without considering this aspect has directed the petitioner to pay the court fee on the market value of the property treating the same as urban property and not an agricultural land. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has committed an error in calling upon the petitioner to pay the additional court fee by filing a fresh valuation slip.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The rule is made absolute. The order passed by the trial court dated 9.6.2005 is hereby quashed.