Geeta Devi v. Union of India

1. Issue notice. Learned counsel for respondent accepts notice. 2018:DHC:9101

2. The applications for early hearing are allowed and the appeals are taken up for hearing today itself. LA.APP. 275/2016 and L.A. APP. 133/2017

3. The appellant and respondent no.l have challenged the judgment dated 05^ September, 2016 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation by applying the circle rates ofthe year 2008.

4. Learned counsel for Union of India submits that the Reference Court has applied the circle rates as the market value of the land in question. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the 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 ofthe judgment ofSupreme 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 suidelines. the circle rates have been provided for the vurvose 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 rate on a scientific basis and methodical assessment ofmarket value.

3. This court in Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. [(2009) 15 SCC 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 by Expert Committees.

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 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 theywill 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 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 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 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.l 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 Courtfor deciding afresh." (Emphasis Supplied) (

5. 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 the liberty to the parties to lead additional evidence with respect to the market value ofthe land and for passing a fresh order.

6. The impugned judgment of the Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court with the liberty to the parties to lead additional evidence with respect to the market value of the land 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.

7. Learned counsels for the appellants in both the appeals seek refund of the Court fees under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Order XLI Rule 23 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which provides for refund ofthe Court fees. Considering that the Reference Court had disposed of the reference on a preliminary 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 a certificate authorising the appellants in both the appeals to receive back the full Court fees paid on the memorandum of appeals from the Collector of Stamps.