Allahabad High Court Urges Government to Reassess Ad Valorem Court Fees
The Allahabad High Court has recently voiced concerns over the imposition of ad valorem court fees in civil litigation, urging the government to consider alternative measures. This recommendation emerged during the hearing of a case concerning a 70-year-old petitioner, Laxmikant Aggarwal, who alleged encroachment on his property, a paper mill located in Visayakpur Raniya village, Kanpur Dehat. The court’s observation was made by a bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla in the case titled Laxmikant Aggarwal v State of UP and Others.
Ad Valorem Court Fees: A Barrier to Justice?
An ad valorem court fee is calculated as a percentage of the monetary value involved in a legal dispute. The petitioner, Aggarwal, argued that the time-consuming nature of civil litigation, coupled with the financial burden of ad valorem fees, discouraged him from pursuing justice through civil courts. The court acknowledged these concerns, stating, “While his apprehensions are not entirely ill-founded, the law is what it is.”
Nevertheless, the bench expressed its view that ad valorem fees might not align with constitutional principles. It remarked, “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 not say that Court fee should not be charged, but to tax justice at ad valorem rates is, indeed, harsh.”
Background of the Case
Aggarwal had previously approached the District Magistrate of Kanpur Dehat, seeking the restoration of his property allegedly encroached upon by an individual with a criminal background. However, no action was taken, prompting him to file a writ petition. The court observed that Aggarwal’s earlier plea was declined, directing him to seek redress in a civil court.
In the current petition, Aggarwal requested an inquiry by the District Magistrate under the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014. The court considered the petitioner’s argument that civil courts pose challenges for senior citizens and acknowledged the difficulties faced by litigants in such proceedings.
More Read
“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 stated.
Conclusion of the Case
The court ultimately determined that Aggarwal’s remedy lay within the jurisdiction of the civil court, emphasizing that the High Court could not convert the Collector into a judge for civil actions concerning senior citizens. Consequently, the bench declined to grant any relief in the writ petition, stating, “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 petitioner was represented by Advocates Devbratt Yadav, Phool Singh Yadav, and Ram Pratap Yadav, while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Girijesh Kumar Tripathi represented the State.
