Union of India v. Naresh Aggarwal

1. The application of early hearing is allowed and the matter is taken up for hearing today itself 2018:DHC:9104 LA.APP. 194/2017 and L.A. APP.

2. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 26*^ August, 2016 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation by applying the circle rates.

3. 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 that the Supreme Court inthe recent judgment of Union ofIndia

V. SavitriDevi, 2017 SCC OnLine 1400 decided on21®^ 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 ofthejudgment 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 uvon. could not have been made the basis for determination of the compensation. In the suidelines. 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 judgment oftheHigh Courtcannotbe 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.

3. This court inLai Chand vj. Union ofIndia &Anr. [(2009) 15 SCC 769], has laid down thus: "4Lit should however be noted that as contrastedfi-om the assessment ofmarket value contained innon-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 market value in different areas by Expert Committees.

44. One ofthe 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 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 ifthey are assessed bystatutorily 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 ofDelhi, 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 (NCTofDelhi) & Ors. v. Aiav Kumar rg- Orfi f(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 appearingfor 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 ofthe compensation payable. Any person, whofeels aggrieved by theaward oftheLandAcquisition Collector or the determination made by the Reference Court can avail remedy either byfiling an application under Section 18 ofthe 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 byapplicationofobjective criteria.

8. In the result, the appeals are disposed ofby making it clear that thecirclerates referredto in notification dated 23.2.2001 issued by appellant No.l shall not constitute the sole criteriafor fixing market value of the acquired land and the LandAcquisition 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 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 tjurpose ofstamp duty could not have been made the basis for determining 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)

4. 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 with Hberty to the parties to lead additional evidence with respect to the market value ofthe land and for passing afresh order.

5. Appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment ofthe Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court with liberty to the parties to lead additional evidence with respect to the market value ofthe land in terms of the aforesaid judgment ofthe Supreme Court and the Reference Court shall pass afresh order in accordance with law.

6. 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, 1908 which provides for refund ofthe Court fees. Considering that the Reference Court had disposed ofthe reference on apreliminary point by taking 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 acertificate authorising the appellants in both the appeals to receive back the full Court fees paid on the memorandum ofappeals from the Collector ofStamps.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 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 deposit the amount along with such interest as the Reference Court may direct in the event ofthe 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 of eight weeks from today. The learned Reference Court shall not permit the private respondent(s) to lead additional evidence tillthe 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,