'Taxing Justice At Ad-Valorem Rates Is Harsh': Allahabad High Court Urges UP Govt To Ease Burden Of Civil Litigation
Observing that taxing justice at "ad valorem rates is, indeed, harsh", the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday urged the Uttar Pradesh Government to consider measures to reduce the hardship faced by litigants pursuing civil remedies.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that disputes over title and possession cannot be decided by administrative authorities and must be taken before the competent civil court.
"...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", a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla remarked.
The observation was made while the Court was hearing the plea of a 70-year-old man who alleged that his commercial property in Kanpur Dehat had been illegally occupied by a history-sheeter along with certain anti-social elements.
Despite approaching the District Magistrate and even raising the issue before the Chief Minister during Janata Darshan, no effective action was taken, he claimed.
The petitioner submitted that he was too old to engage in prolonged civil litigation and therefore, he sought directions to the District Magistrate to restore possession of the property by invoking the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014.
The petitioner referred to the 2017 Government Order, which included a provision against land grabbing and constituted an Anti-Land Grabbing Committee at the tahsil and district levels.
The bench was informed that the Committee is empowered to inquire into land-grabbing matters, and, after inquiry, the Committee has the power to have it vacated by using necessary force.
At the outset, the bench expressed surprise that such a GO had been issued, under which the judicial power of the State had been transferred to an administrative committee dehors the statute by an executive order.
The bench, however, noted that the said GO is already the subject of a writ petition pending before the HC.
Regarding the direction sought in the plea, the Court declined to allow it, noting that the relief sought was essentially related to recovery of possession on the basis of title, a dispute that falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts.
The Bench also noted that this was not the petitioner's first attempt before the High Court. It took note that an earlier writ petition seeking substantially the same relief had already been disposed of with liberty to approach the civil court.
The present petition, the Court said, sought the very same relief, though "in a different mould".
The Court, however, acknowledged the petitioner's reluctance to file a civil suit. It recorded that his hesitation stems from the long time 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.
While expressing sympathy for the petitioner's concerns, the Bench said the law did not permit it to replace civil courts with executive authorities.
"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", the Court remarked.
The Court also acknowledged 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".
The bench said that some of their powers have been grossly curtailed by statutes, thereby excluding them from jurisdiction.
However, it clarified that 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.
Against this backdrop, disposing of the petition, the Court urged the State Government to revisit the issue of court fees. The division bench also left it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings before the competent civil court.
The bench directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary (Revenue) and the Principal Secretary (Law) of the Uttar Pradesh Government for consideration.
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Devbratt Yadav, Phool Singh Yadav, Ram Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s): ACSC Girijesh Kumar Tripathi
Case Title - Laxmikant Aggarwal vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 494
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 494