The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday held that payment of court fees is compulsory for initiating proceedings relating to Waqf properties before the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal.
The ruling was delivered in Sunni Muslim Idgah Masjid Trust v. Hardik Sitaram Patel & Anr.
The petitioners had contended that court fees under the Gujarat Court Fees Act, 2004 were not payable because Section 83(3) of the Waqf Act refers to such proceedings as an “application” rather than a “suit”. On this basis, it was argued that the statutory levy of court fees was not attracted.
Justice J.C. Doshi, however, declined to accept this submission. The Court observed that proceedings instituted under Section 83(3) of the Waqf Act possess the essential attributes of adversarial litigation. Such applications involve adjudication of competing claims between landlords and tenants, prayers for eviction, and determination of the respective rights and obligations of lessors and lessees.
The Court noted that once initiated, these proceedings are conducted in a manner similar to a civil suit. Merely describing the initiating pleading as an “application” does not alter its substantive character, the judge held, adding that in essence and effect, such proceedings are akin to a suit.
Emphasising the statutory scheme, the Court pointed out that the Waqf Tribunal is expressly deemed to be a civil court and is conferred with all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for trying suits and executing decrees or orders. In this framework, the Court held, the nomenclature of the pleading cannot override its true nature when it seeks judicial determination of rights and liabilities of parties.
The Court concluded that there is no general exemption from payment of court fees for applications filed under Section 83 of the Waqf Act in Gujarat. In the absence of any express statutory provision granting such an exemption, the levy of court fees is attracted.
The High Court further ruled that CPC provisions apply to proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal. Consequently, applications can be rejected on grounds such as improper valuation or non-payment of requisite court fees. Justice Doshi specifically held that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which empowers a court to reject a plaint for deficiencies including undervaluation or insufficient court fees, cannot be excluded from Waqf Tribunal proceedings.
The judgment was rendered in a batch of 133 petitions arising from cases seeking recovery of possession of Waqf properties from tenants or alleged encroachers. In these matters, the Waqf Tribunal had dismissed the applications after finding that the Waqf institutions and applicants had failed to correctly value their claims or affix appropriate court fees.
The High Court noted that despite being granted an opportunity, the applicants did not rectify the valuation or pay the deficit court fees. As a result, their applications were rejected. The Court refused to interfere with these orders, observing that the initial directions to correct valuation for court fee and jurisdiction purposes were never challenged before any higher forum until the plaints were rejected.
Answering a key issue, the Court held that where the first order directing correction of valuation remains unchallenged, the subsequent order rejecting the plaint cannot be assailed on the ground of non-payment of court fees. Finding no illegality, jurisdictional error or legal infirmity, the Court declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.
Advocate M.T.M. Hakim appeared for the petitioners. Government Pleader Gursharan Virk represented the State, while Advocate Manish Shah appeared on behalf of the Gujarat State Waqf Board.
Also Read: Supreme Court Stays Key Provisions Of Controversial Waqf Act https://www.vibesofindia.com/supreme-court-stays-key-provisions-of-controversial-waqf-act/
