Full Text
LA.APP.125/2017
SUKHBIR SARAN(DECEASED)THR LRS Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil Bhatnagar, LR (B) of appellant is present in person.
(M:9810237148)
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for R-1.(M:9953021339)
UNION OFINIDA Appellant
Through: Mr. Sachin Nawani, Advocate.
(M:9818083655)
THR LRS &ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Bhatnagar, LR (B) of appellantis presentin person.
16.01.2020
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 855 days in filing is condoned. Application is disposed of.
30138/2019
ORDER
1. The present two appeals arise out of Award No.l of 1999-2000 of LA.APP. 125/2017& 104/2019 Page 1 of[4] 2020:DHC:3914 village Chandrawali @ Shahdara passed by the Id. LAC. The said award was subject matter ofLAC No.52/16/11 before the Reference Court, which has determined the compensation videjudgment dated 9^*^ December,2016.
2. It has been brought to the notice ofthis court that in Union ofIndia
V. RaviShankar and Ors.,LA.APP.98/2018(Decided on 31"'May,2018) arising out ofthe same award and same village, a Id. Single Judge of this Court has remanded the matter to be determined afresh in line with the judgmentofthe Supreme Court in Union ofIndia v. SavitriDevi, SLPNo. 2II36/20I5(Decided on 21"'September,2017). The operative portion of the order in LA.APP.No.98/2018 is set out herein below: "5. Learned counselsfor the parties submit that the impugnedjudgmentofthe Reference Court besetaside and the matter be remanded back to the Reference Court for recording of additional evidence of the parties with respect to the marketvalue ofthe land and forpassingafresh order.
4. The appeal is allowed, the impugnedjudgment of the Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Courtfor recording additional evidence in terms ofthe aforesaidjudgment ofthe Supreme Court and the Reference Court shall pass afresh order in accordance with law.
5. Learned counselfor the appellantseeks extension oftime to deposit the Courtfees. At his request, time to depositthe Courtfees is extended by two weeks.
6. Learned counselfor the appellantfurther seeks refund ofthe Courtfees to be deposited, under Section 13 ofthe Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Order XLI Rule 23 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which providesfor refund ofthe Courtfees. Considering that the Reference Courthad disposed ofthe reference on a preliminary point by taking the circle rates and the remand is being made ofthispreliminarypointoflaw, LA.APP. 125/2017& 104/2019 Page2of[4] $ theprayerfor refundofthe Courtfees, to be deposited, is allowed and the registry shall grant a certificate authorising the appellantto receive back thefull Court fees to bepaid on the memorandum ofappealfrom the Collector ofStamps.
7. Learned counselfor the appellant seeks direction with respect to the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited, the appellant would not be required to deposit/pay the same. However, in case, the decretal amount has already been deposited with the Reference Court but not yet released, the Reference Court shall retain the amount in fixed deposit till fresh adjudication. In case the decretal amount has been released to the private respondent(s), the private respondent(s) is/are permitted to retain the decretal amount tillfresh order ispassed by the Reference Courtsubject to theprivate. respondent(s) furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction oftheReference Courtwith an undertaking to deposit the amount along with such interest as the Reference Court may direct in the event of the appellant succeeding before the Reference Court. In such cases, an undertaking along with the sufficient security to the satisfaction ofthe Reference Court be filed by the private respondent(s) before the Reference Court within a period ofeight weeksfrom today. The learned Reference Court shall not permit the private respondent(s) to lead additional evidence till the undertaking and the security in terms ofthis order is furnished by the private respondent(s) before the Reference Court. In the event of the failure of the private respondent(s) to file an undertaking and the security within eight weeks, the appellant would be at liberty to initiate execution proceedingsfor recovery of the decretal amountfrom the private respondent(s) in accordance with law.
8. Thepartiesshallappear before the Reference Court on 17"' July, 2018. Learned counselsfor the parties LA.APP. 125/2017& 104/2019 Page3of[4] X & submit that they have noted down the next date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would require for appearance before the Reference Court."
3. LA. APP. 125/2017 has been filed by the land owners and LA. APP 104/2019 has been filed by the Union ofIndia. Since the very same award has been considered by a Ld. Single Judge of this Court and orders for remand have been passed, the present appeals are also allowed and are remanded for adjudication in terms of the orders passed in LA. APP "7^ 98/2018.
4. Let both these matters be listed along with Union ofIndia v Ravi Shankar(supra) pending before the Reference Court to proceed further in accordance with the judgment dated May,2018. In terms ofpara 6 of the order in LA. APP 98/2018, similarly, court fee in these two petitions is directed to be refunded in full.
5. Parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 27^*^ February,2020.
6. The appeals are disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M.SINGH,J. Januaryi[6],2020/jyt LA.APP. 125/2017& 104/2019 Page4of[4] ■ $-10 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + la.APP.98/2018 UNION OFINDIA T.,, Appellant Through: Mr.Sachin Nawani,Advocate versus RAVISHANKAR & ORS n. rp,,... Respondents Through: Mr.S.K.Rout,Advocatefor " ■' respondents No. 1 to 4 ^ Ml. Puneet Garg, Advocate with Mr. A.S. Rao, Law Officer for DMRC CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA ORDER % 31.05.2018 C.M. Appl. 18563/201S The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of..LA.APP. 98/2018 and C.M. ApdI. 185fi?/7m »
1. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 11'" April, 2016 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced tlie compensation by applying the circle rates. I
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has applied the circle rates as the market value ofthe land in question. It is submitted thatthe Supreme Court in the recentjudgment ofUnion ofIndia
V. SavUriDevi, 2017 SCC OnLine 1400 decided on 21" September. 2017 set aside the awards based on circle rales holding that the circle rates could not haw been made basis for determination of compensation. The Supreme Court remanded back the matter with liberty to the parties to adduce % additional evidence with respectto tire marketvalue ofthe land. Relevant portionofthejudgmentofSupremeCourtisreproduced hereunder:-
2. After hearing learned counselfor the parties, we deem it appropriate tosetaside theimpugnedjudgmentandorderas the gmcfe thathas been reliedimon ro^.tA have heen the basis for determination of the cnmnensation. In the BOVment ofstamp dutr hut that cannot he mnTTiirt-rt determinetheactualprice ofthe marketvalueofthe p may vary considering the nature and sit„a,io„ ejudgmentoftheHigh Courtcannothe j„addition there is nothing to indicate that any statutory committee has determined the said rate on a scientific basis and methodical assessmentofmarketvalue. orr ofIndia &Am.[(2009)IS oCC 769], has laiddown thus: 4Litshould however be noted that as contrastedfrom theassessmentofmarketvaluecontainedin non-statutory Basic Valuation Registers, theposition may be different, where the guideline market values are determined by Expert Committees constituted under the State Stamp Law, by following the detailed procedure laid down under the relevant rules, and are published in the State ' Gazette. Such state stamp Acts and the Rules thereunder provide for scientific and methodical assessment of marketvaluein differentareas byExpertCommittees.
44. One ofthe recognised methodsfor determination of market value is with reference to opinion ofexperts. The estimation ofmarketvalue bysuch statutorily constituted expert committees, as expert evidence, can, therefore, form the basisfor determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevantpiece ofevidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidenceonlyiftheyareassessedbystatutorilyappointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessmentprocedure(either streetwise, or road-wise, or area-wise, or village-wise) andfinalised after inviting objectionsandpublishedin the Gazette.Bethatasitmay.
46 In theinstantcase,there is nothingtoshow thecircle rates have been de^termined by any statutorily.appointed commutee by adopting scientific basis. Hence the principleinJawajdeNaganatham willapplyandthey will no eofanyassistancefordeterminingthe marketvalue Further, they do nhtpurport to be the market valuefor lands in rural areas on the outskirts ofDelhi, nor the marketvaluesrelatingtoRithala village. The circle rates relate to urban/city areas in Delhi and are wholly irrelevant." l( 014)13sec 7341 it was held that r.irr.lf
8 In the result, the appeals are disposed ofby making it clear that the circle rates referred to in notification dated 23.2.2001 issued by appellant No.l shall not constitute the sole criteriaforfixing market value ofthe acquired land and the Land Acquisition Collector shall befree to make determination by taking into consideration the relevant factors and the evidence which may in an appropriate case include circle rates."
5. It was submitted by learned counsel appearingfor theparties that it would be appropriate to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. The High Court may permit the parties to adduce the evidence before the Reference Courtand callfor the findingofthe Reference Court. circle rates for purpose ofstamp duty could not have been made the basis for determining the marketvalue. Resultantly, we set aside thejudgmentpassed by the High Court. The appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted to the High Courtfor deciding afresh." (Emphasis Supplied)
3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the impugned judgment ofthe Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Reference Court for recording of additional evidence of the parties with respectto the marketvalue oftheland and for passing afresh order. ^ 4. The appealis allowed,theimpugnedjudgmentofthe Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for recording additional evidence in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and the Reference Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks extension oftime to deposit the Courtfees.• Athis request,time to depositthe Courtfees is extended by two weeks.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further seeks refund of the Court feesto be deposited,under Section 13 ofthe.CourtFees Act,1870read with Order XLIRule 23 ofthe Code ofCivilProcedure, 1908 which provides for refund ofthe Courtfees. Consideringthatthe Reference Courthad disposed i (( ofthe reference on a prehminary point by taking the circle rates and the remandtsbemgmadeofthispreliminarypointoflaw,theprayerforrefund O the Courtfees,to be deposited,is allowed and theregistry shallgranta certificateauthorisingtheappellanttoreceive backthefoil Courtfeesto be paidonthememorandumofappealfromtheCollectorofStamps.
7. Learned counselforthe appellantseeks direction withrespectto the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited,the appellantwouldnotberequiredtodeposit/paythesame. However,incase, thedecretalamounthasalreadybeendepositedwiththeReferenceCourtbut notyetreleased,theReferenceCourtshallretaintheamountinfixed deposit tillfresh adjudication. In casethedecretal amounthas been released to the private respondent(s),theprivaterespondent(s)is/are permittedtoretainthe decretalamounttillfresh orderispassed bytheReference Courtsubjectto the privaterespondent(s)furnishingsufficientsecurityto thesatisfaction of theReference Court with an undertaking to depositthe amountalong with suchinterestastheReferenceCourtmaydirectintheeventoftheappellant succeedingbeforetheReferenceCourt. Insuchcases,anundertakingalong withthesufficientsecuritytothesatisfactionoftheReferenceCourtbefiled bythe private respondent(s)beforetheReference Court withina period of eight weeksfrom today.The learned Reference Courtshall notpermitthe privaterespondent(s)tolead additionalevidencetillthe undertakingandthe security m terms ofthis order is fomished by the private respondent(s) before the Reference Court. In the event of the failure of the private respondent(s)tofileanundertakingandthesecurity within eightweeks,the appellantwould be atlibertyto initiate execution proceedingsforrecovery ofthe decretal amount from the private respondent(s)in accordance with law.
8. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 17'" July, k 20,18. Learnedcounselsforthepartiessubmitthattheyhavenoteddownthe next date ofhearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be requiredforappearance beforetheReference Court.
9. Pending application is disposed of.
10. Copyofthis orderbegiven dastito counselfortheparties underthe signature ofthe CourtMaster. may31,2018 J. rsk