Mahenderkumar v. Union of India & Anr

49 UNION OF INDIA...;. Appellant, % Through: Mr. SahjayKuniar Pa; - ^ KaomtidiKiran, Mr. Sum!Kumar '. '.,;. Jha, Kushal Raj Tater, •• /Uditar, Advs:...versus',,. " MAHENDERKUMAR & ANR \,,.....Respondents: ' '. Ti^ough:,Mr. Jai Sahai,Endlaw, Adv... CORAM:-, ' 7, •\• v HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE J R. MIDHA ORDER 22;03.2018 A LA.APP. 460/2015 and L.A. APP. 323/2016

1. The appellant and respondent no.1 have challenged;the, judgment dated 28^*^ August, 2015 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the ' cohipensation by applying thecircle rates.. /' V •: -";; 2?'--, 2018:DHC:9078 has applied the circle rates as the market value of the land in.question. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the feceiit judgment of Union ofIndia

V. SavitriDevi, 2017.SCC OnLine 1400 decided on 21®^ September, 2017 set aside the awards based on circle rates holding 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 ofthe judgment of Supreme Court is reproduced hereunder: - "2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugnedjudgment and order as the circle rates, that has been relied upon, could not have been made the basis for determination of the compensation. In the guidelines, the circle rates have been provided for the purpose of payment of stamp duty, but that cannot be made the basis to determine the actual price ofthe market value ofthe property.. It may vary considering the nature and situation ofthe land. Thus, the iudsnient ofthe Hish Court cannot be sustained. In addition, there is nothing to indicate that any statutory committee has determined the said rate on a scientific basis and methodical assessment ofmarket value, 5; This court in LalChand vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. [(2009) 15 see 769], has laid down thus: "4Lit should however be noted that as contrastedfrom '• the assessment ofmarket value contained in non-statutory Basic Valuation Registers, the position may be different, where the guideline market values are determined by Expert Conirnittees 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 differentareas byExpert Committees.

44. One of the recognised methodsfor 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 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 evidence ohly iftheyare assessed bystatutorily 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 be the market value for 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 ofDelhi) & Ors. v. Aiav Kumar & Ors. 1(2014)13 see 7341 it was held that circle rates could not form the basis. Compensation 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 appearingfor 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 6f the compensation payable. Any person, whofeels aggrieved by the award ofthe 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 by application ofobjective criteria. I, f

8. In. the.result, the appeals are disposed ofby making it clear that the circle rates referred to in notification ddted 23.2.2001 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 the parties. that it would be appropriate to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. The HigU Court may permit the parties to adduce the evidence before the Reference Court and callfor the finding ofthe Reference Court.

6. The circle rates forpurpose ofstamp duty could not have been made the basis for determinin[2] the market value. Resultantly^ we set aside the judgment passed by the High Court,, The appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted to the High Courtfor deciding afresh." •, • (Emphasis Supplied) \ 'V > )• •.• r ' \' - /, N.1.,3,.'' •Learned counsels for the parties submit that theWpughed judgment.. of the Reference Court'be.set^aside and the/matter be,renianded back to the;; ^ • Reference Court for recording of Additional evidence.of the parties with,.,respecttotheimarket value ofthelandMd for passing a fresh order.;• r ' 4. The impugned judgment of the Reference Covirt is set aside and the, "v, m^ter is: remanded,back to the Reference Cburt for recording-; additional /evidence in terrhs of the.afoi-esaid judgment, of the. Supreme "Court and - ^Reference Court siiall passv-a fresh order in acco'rdance with'law. ' The^ ' '', •.appeals are disposedofin.above ternis. ^^^ 5.., Learned,counsels foi: the appellants in both.the. apjpeals, seek refiind of J V • the Court fees.jLinder Section is ofthe Coiirt Fees Act, 1870 read yvith Order ' XLLRule 23 ofthe Code.ofCivil Procedure,,1908 which proyides^ ^..,. ' ofthe Court fees'; vborisidering that the Reference Court haddisposed oftile;;; - • ' reference' on a preliminary point by taking' the'cirple rates andthe remancj is; -.;1;, ' being made of this preiimina^yvpbint of law, the,prayer for refund of the;,' "Court fees is allowed and the registry•shall grant a certificate authbrising,the,., appellants inboth the appeals,to recejve back'the full.'Court/fees paid - - ' -; memoraiiduni ofappeals from tiie Collector ofStamps.;: \ v '6V' Learned.counsel for the appellants s.eek direGtioh with respect.!^ ^ ' decretal amount. In case the.decretal,amo,urit has-not been deposited the •; / • appellant would not be required to deposit/pay tiie same!. However, in case,, ': ^ ',,,, the decretal amount has, already been deposited withvor attached by tlife • ';; -• Reference'Court but hot yet released, the Reference Court'shall retain thd./ - ': amount in fixed deposit till' fresh adjudication; Jn case the decretal ahioUht. •' ' /has been released to, the private, respondent(s,), tiie;,private respondent(tS): 1, lO; is/are permitted to retain the decretal amount till fresh orderis passed by the Reference Court subject to the private responderit(s) furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court with an undertaking sto deposit the amount along with such interest-as the Reference "Coui^t 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,, I _ ' ^. s ^ ' ' 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 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 proceedings for recovery of the decretal amount from the private respohdent(s) in accordance with law. 7.. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on May, 2018. • Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have noted down the next date bf 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. • t J.R. MlDHA, J. MARCH 22,2018 ak