jai Sahai Endlaw v. Kushal R. Akhtar

2. Learned counsel for Union ofIndia submits that the Reference Court has applied the circle rates as the, market value ofthe' land in question. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the recent,judgment oi Union ofIndia

V. Savitri Devi, 2017 SCC OnLine 1400 decided on 21'^ September, 2017 set, aside the awards based on circle rates holdiiig that the circle rates could not have been made basis for determination' of compensation. The Supreme Court remanded back the matter with liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence with respect to the market value of the land. Relevant ' portion ofthejudgment of Supreme Court is reproduced hereiinder: -

• 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.market value in different areas by Expert Committees.: r, • \ 44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference'to opinion ofexperts. The • ^ • estimation ofmarket value by such statutorily constituted expert (Committees, as expert evidence^ can,. therefore, • form the basis for determining the market value in land '; ' acquisition cases, as a relevant piece 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 evidence only ifthey are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed..: •assessment procedure (either streetwise, or road-wise, or, area-wise, or village-wise) and finalised after inviting.; objections andpublished in the Gazette. Be that as it may.. '46. In the instant case, there is nothing to show the circle ^.,. rates have been determined by any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, the, ', principle in Jawajee Naganatham will apply and they will - not be ofany assistancefor determining the market value.. Further, they do not purport to he the market valuefor, " ^ ' lands in rural areas on the outskirts of Delhi, nor, the;. market values relating to Rithala village. The circle rates relate to urban/city ' areas in Delhi and are wholly,, irrelevant. ", ' •. 4. In Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. A/ay Kumar & Ors. f(2014)IS see 7341 it was held that circle rates could not form the basis. Compensatioh has to be determined on the basis of • -. objective criteria, this court observed: ^ '; "7. We have heard Shri L.N. Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants and Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior advocate-appearing for the respondents. Though, we appreciate the anguish; - - ' expressed by the High Court over the abysmally low. market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collectors in almost all cases, a phenomenon which is prevalent all over the country, it is not possible to approve the exercise undertaken by the High Courtfor forcing the administration to prescribe circle rates as the criteria for fixing market value or for determination of the compensation. The 1894 Act contains' a comprehensive mechanism for fixing market value and determination of the compensation payable. Any person, whofeels aggrieved by the awardofthe Land Acquisition Collector or the determination made'by the Reference Court can avail remedy either by filing an. application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act or byfiling an appeal under Section 54 thereof- Therefore, there, was no justification for the High Court to have compelled the • Government to adopt the circle rates as an important factor for fixing market value of the acquired land.The power vested in the Collector to determine market value of the acquired land cannot be controlled by a judicial fiat and each case has to be decided by the concerned authority byapplication ofobjectii^e criteria.

8. In the result, the appeals are disposed ofby making it clear that the circle rates referredto in notification dated., 23.2.20.01 issued by appellant No.l shall not constitute the sole criteria for fixing market value of the 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 Court and callfor the finding ofthe Reference Court.

6. The circle rates for purpose ofstamp duty could not have been made the basis for determining the market value. Resultantly, we set aside the judgment passed by the High. Cpurt. The appeals: are allowed and the matters are remitted to the High Courtfor deciding afresh.", a (Emphasis Supplied)

3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the impugned judgment of the Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Reference Court for recording of additional evidence of the parties with I respect tothemarket value ofthe land and for passing a fresh order.

4. The iinpugned judgment of the 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. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.,:

5. Learned counsels for the-appellants in both the appeals seek refund of the Court fees under Section 13 ofthe Court Fees Act, 1870 read with,Order XLI Rule 23 ofthe, Code ofCivil Procedure, 1,908 which provides for refund ofthe Court fees. Considering that the Reference Court had disposed ofthe reference on a preliminary point bytaking the circle rates, and the remand is being made of this preliminary point of law, the prayer for refund of the. Court fees is allowed and the registry shall grant a certificate authorising the appellants inboth the appeals to receive back the full Court fees paid on the ' memorandum of appeals from theCollector of Stamps.

6. Learned, counsel for the appellants seek direction with respect to the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited, the appellptwould not be required to deposit/pay the.same. However, in case, ^the decretal amount has already, been deposited with or attached by 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 ID. has been released to the private respondent(s), the private respondent(s) is/are permitted,to retain the decretal amount till fresh order is passed by the Reference Court subject to the private resporident(s) furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the-Reference Court with 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 of the Reference Court be filed by the private respondent(s) before the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from today. The learned Reference Court shall not permit the private respondent(s) to lead additional evidence till the undertaking and the security,in terms of this order is furnished by tlie 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 proceedings for recovery of the decretal amount from the private respondent(s) in accordance with law.

7. The parties shall.appear before the Reference Court on 1®' May, 2018. Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have noted down the next date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be required for appearance before the Reference Court.,

8. Copy of this order be given dasti to. counsel for the parties under the signature ofthe Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J. MARCH 22,2018 ak