Anand Prakash G v. Union of India

5. This court in Lai Chand V[5]. Union ofIndia &-Anr. [(2009) 15; see 769], has laid down thus: ' •: "41.It shoiild however be noted that.as contrastedfrom ' the; assessment ofmarket value contained in non-statutory Basic Valiiation Registers, the position may be different, '/. where the guideline market values are determined by.. Expert Committees cdnstituted 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 stdmp Acts and thje Rules thereunder, ' - ' provide for scientific and methodical assessment of market value.in different areas by Expert Committees. 44: One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference td opihion ofexperts. The estimation ofmarket value bysuhh 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 - evidence only iftheyare assessed bystatutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with 'the prescribed, assessmentprocedure (either streetwise, or road-wise, or area-wise, or village-wjse) 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 circlerates have been determined by any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, the principle inJawqjeeNaganqtham willapply and they will not be ofany assistancefor determining the market value. Further, they do riot 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 arid are wholly irrelevant."

4. In Government (NCT ofDelhi) & Ors. v. Ajav Kumar & Ors. [{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 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 Court for,. forcing the administration toprescribe 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 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. ' 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. 1 shall not constitute the sole criteria for fixing market value of the acquired, land and the Land Acquisition Collector, shall be free 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 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 determinins 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 C6urifor deciding afresh." ' ^Emphasis Supplied) 3.. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the impugned judgnient of the Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the

I. 'Reference Court for recording of additional evidence of the parties^ with respect to the market value ofthe land and for passing a fresh order.

4. The impugned judgment of the Reference Court is set aside and the / ' • • f '. \ • 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 of Civil Procedure, 1908 which provides.for refund of the Court fees. Considering that the Reference Court had disposed of the; reference on a preliminary point by taking the cirble 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 in both the appeals to receive back the full Court fees paid on the memorandum ofappeals from the Collector 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 appellant would 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,has been released to the private resporident(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 respondent(s) furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court with an undertaking to '/; •'-. V: '; A®'.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 ca!ses, an undertaking along with the sufficient security to the. • I ' ' 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 respondent(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 of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be required • for appearance beforethe Reference Court.;

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