Smt Suman Gaud vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 FA-909-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
th
ON THE 24 OF JULY, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 909 of 2026
SMT SUMAN GAUD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kamal Nayan Dwivedi - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Manoj K. Jha - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4/State.
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed challenging the order Annexure A/8
passed by the Collector, whereby the Collector has refused to refer the matter
to the authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
2. The counsel for the appellant, when faced with query of the Court as to
maintainability of this appeal, fairly submits that instead of filing a First
Appeal under Section 96 CPC or under Section 74 of the Act of 2013, the
order of the Collector had to be challenged in a writ petition. In any event,
the appeal under Section 74 is not maintainable because appeal under Section
74 would lie only against the award passed by the Authority under Section
69 and at present there is no adjudication by the Authority under Section 69,
because the Collector has refused to refer the matter to the Authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-07-2026
14:50:26

2 FA-909-2026
3. However, he submits that since the appeal was filed due to ignorance of

legal provisions and even the maximum court fees payable i.e. Rs.1.50 Lakh
has been paid on memorandum of appeal and the appeal itself is not
maintainable, therefore, this Court may direct refund of the court fees already
paid, moreso when the appellant is a land loser.
4. The counsel for the appellant submits that the questions of law regarding
remedies to be availed by a person involve very intricate legal questions and
the litigants go completely by the advice of their counsel and the counsel
takes a particular view to avail a particular remedy as per his wisdom but the
litigant should not be punished monetarily for the counsel choosing the
wrong forum and the litigant believing the advice of the counsel, and even
paying the court fees for approaching the wrong forum.
5. The aforesaid situation was considered by the Division Bench of Delhi
High Court in the case of Amit Jain vs. Mahavir International Pvt. Ltd. &
Others, vide judgment dated 08.05.2023 passed in FAO (COMM)
27/2023 wherein the Division Bench of Delhi High Court considering the
identical situation, has held as under:-


"9. Coming to the other aspect, the question as to whether a
money recovery suit should be filed before a commercial court or
a ordinary civil court is too intricate a question of law to be
fathomed by a lay person. The litigant in regard to such decisions
goes completely by the advice of her counsel. Where a counsel in
her wisdom arrives at a particular view on any point of law and
acts accordingly, but subsequently feels not confident to proceed
further, the litigant ought not to be punished monetarily.
10. It is trite that while interpreting a fiscal legislation like Court
Fees Act, the court should adopt liberal attitude so as to lessen and
not add to the burden of the litigant. Especially where the court
dealing with the lis is of the view that it is not competent to decide
the same, there is no logic in depriving the litigant refund of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-07-2026
14:50:26

3 FA-909-2026
court fees.
11. In the case of Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank
(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for appellant, in a similar
situation, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while
referring to various judicial precedents including the decision of its
Full Bench, took a view that where the court fees on the institution
of a suit has been paid in a court which cannot possibly afford the
relief sought, it does not seem consistent with sound principle that
the plaintiff should be condemned to lose the fees thus paid, or
that he should not be allowed to ask without paying a second fee
for an adjudication from a court which can really give one.
12. Such refusal to refund court fees even in a lis which remained
unadjudicated and expecting the litigant to pay up again would
discourage the law-abiding litigant from approaching the justice
dispensation system. Such a form of docket exclusion would be
highly counterproductive for any civilized society.
13. In the present case, the fact remains that at the initial stage
itself, on being pointed out the jurisdictional infirmity, the
appellant fairly conceded and moved the application dated
05.11.2022 seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to
file fresh suit, the lis remains unsolved. There having been no
formal adjudication of the dispute brought by the appellant before
the trial court, we are of the opinion, that it would be too onerous
on the appellant to make him pay court fees afresh.
14. In view of above discussion, we are unable to uphold the
impugned order to the extent it rejects the prayer of the appellant
for return/refund of the court fees and to that extent, the impugned
order is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed."

6. The present case also stands on similar footing and this Court does not

deem it appropriate to hand out a monetary punishment to the appellant who
is a land-loser for having approached this Court in first appeal when the
appeal itself was not maintainable, and the appellant for approaching this
Court has paid court fees of Rs.1.50 Lakh.
7. Therefore, though the case may not be strictly as per Section 16 of the
Court Fees Act, but following the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi
High Court, it is held that the appellant is entitled to refund the full court fees
paid on memorandum of appeal.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is allowed to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-07-2026
14:50:26

4 FA-909-2026
withdrawn with liberty to file a writ petition against the impugned order

Annexure A/8. Registry of this Court is directed to issue appropriate
certificate regarding refund of court fees already paid on memorandum of
this appeal, authorising the appellant to receive back the full amount of court
fees paid before this Court, from the Collector.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal being not maintainable, is
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to such remedies
against the impugned order, as are available under the law.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 25-07-2026
14:50:26