AO v. Union of India

1. • 'The appellant.and- respondent'no.! have challenged-the judgment •,.dated' 28^'' August,;2015 whereby tlie, Reference iCourt has^enhanced;the: compensation byapplying thecircle rates. I '. '. 2/ has applied the circle rates as the'market value ofthe land in~qiiestion. It is 2018:DHC:9091 submitted that the Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Union ofIndia

V. Savitri Devi, 2Q\1 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 portionof thejudgment 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 considerins the nature and situation ofthe land. Thus, the iudsment ofthe Hish Court cannot be sustained. In addition, there is nothing to indicate that any statutory_ committee has. determined the said rat^ on a scientific basis and methodical assessment ofmarket value.

3. This court in Lai Chand 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 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 byExpert Committees.

44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference to opinion ofexperts. The estimation of market 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 presurnption 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 assessmentprocedure (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 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 ofDelhi) & Ors. v. Aiav 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 Courtfor 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 awardofthe LandAcquisition 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 forfixing market value ofthe acquired land. The power vested in the Collector to determine market value of the acquired land cannot be controlled by a judicicil fiat and each case has to be decided by the concerned authorityby application ofobjective criteria.

8. In the result, the appeals are disposed of by making it clear that the circle rates referredto 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 befree to make determination by taking info consideration the relevant factors and the evidence which may,in an appropriate case include circle rates. "• '

5. It was submitted by learned counsel app^ringfor the parties that it would be appropriate to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. The High Court may permit theparties to adduce the evidence before the Reference Court and callfor the finding oftheReference Court.

6. The circle rates for purpose ofstampduty couldnot have been made the basis for determinin2'the marketvalue. 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,afi-esh." - ' ' • I ' (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 respect to the market value ofthe land and for passing afresh order,

4. The impugned 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 judgnient 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 inboth the appeals seek refund of the Court fees under Section 13 of the CourtFees Act, 1870 read with Order, I •' XLI Rule 23 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908which provides for refund ofthe Court fees. Considering that the Reference Court had disposed ofthe reference on a preliminary point by taking the circle rates and the remand is being made ofthis preliminary point oflaw, the prayer for refund ofthe Court fees is allowed and the registry shall grant a certificate authorising the appellalnts in both the appeals to receive back'the full Coiirt fees paid on the.•..memorandum of appeals from the Collector of Stamps. ' ' 6. Learned counsel for the appellants seek direction with respect tothe 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 or attached by • Reference Court but not yet released, the Reference Court shall, retain the amount in fixed deposit till fresh adjudication. In case the decretal aniount 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 respondent(s) fumishiiig 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 the private respondent(s) before the Reference Court. In the event of the failure of the private respondent(s) to file anundertaking. and the security within eight weeks, the appellant would, be at liberty to initiate' execution proceedings for recovery ofthe decretal amount from the private respondent(s) inaccordance 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 ofhearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be required for appearance before theReference Court. >.

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