Surinder Gupta & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

1. The appellant and respondent no.l have challenged the judgment dated 2"" lanuary, 2017 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation by applying the circle rates.

2. Learned counsel for Union ofIndia submits that the Reference Court 2018:DHC:8328 !:JL <"»• V.5«v«rii>.v/,2017seeOnLine 1400decidedon21 September,2017se asidethe awardsbased oncircleratesholdingthatthe circlerates couldno have been tnade basis for detemrination of compensation. The Supreme Court remanded back the matter with liberty to the parties to aduce additional evidence with respect to the market value ofthe Ian. portionofthejudgmentofSupremeeourtisreproducedhereunder.- "2 AHer hearing learned counsellor the parties assessment ofmarket value. rz-^nno) I'i

3. This court in Lai Chandvs. Union ofIndia &Am. [(2009) see 769], has laid down thus: "41 It should however be noted that as contrastedfrom. thelse^ofmarketvalue containedin non-staUtory Basic Valuation Registers, the position may be d'fferj:nt, y^here the guideline market values Expert Committees constituted under the Stc^teSt^P law by following the detailed procedure latd down under the relevant rules, and are published mthe State oZtte. Such state stamp Acts and the Rules thereunder provide for scientific and methodical assess^nt of market value in differentareas by Expert Committees.

44 One ofthe recognised methodsfor determination of market value is with reference to opinion ofexperts. estimation ofmarket value by such statutorily comtituted tpert committees, as expert evidence ^an. theref^e, form the basisfor determining the market value mland (o acauisition cases, as arelevantpiece ofevidence It will be however open to either party to place ev^ence to dislodge the presumption that may flow SLmarL valL We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant evidence only ifthey are assessed by Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessmentprocedure (either streetwise, or road-wise, or area-wise, or village-wise) and finalised after inviting objectionsandpublishedin the Gazette. Bethatas itmay.

46 In the instant case, there is nothing to show the circle rates have been determined by any stautorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis^ ^th^will principle in JawajeeNaganatham will apply andthey notb!ofanyassistancefor determiningthemarketvalue Further they do notpurport to be the market valuefo 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. ijLQmnimmLmCToIDMbnJLOr^^....'.rr 7^41 i,was held circle rates could not form,u„ hi,. Cnmnensation hqsZle determined on tl^bam^ r.hj^^tive criteria, this court observed: ••7.We have heard Shri L.N. Rao. learnf ^dditioml Solicitor General appearingfor the appellants and S PS Narasimha, learned senior advocate appearingfo the respondents. Though, we appreciate the anguish exoressed by the High Court over the abysmally low ZZ value deteLined hy the Land Acc,uM.on Collectors in almost all cases, aphenomenon which is prevalent all over the country, it is not possible approve the exercise undertaken by the High Courtfor forcing the administration toprescribe circle rates as the criteriafor faing market value orfor determmatwn of the compensation. The 1894 Act contains a eomprehensive mechanism for fixing marUt value and determination ofthe compensation pciyable. 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 5S|lS=il Government to aaopi me v Thp factorfor fixing market value ofthe acquired • ^power vested in the Collector to determine of the acquired land cannot be controlled by ajudicial fifanZch case has to be decided by the concerned authority by application ofobjective criteria. >? In the result the appeals are disposed ofby ma ng i clZtitThecirclerZes referredto innotificationdaed 7^ 72001 issued by appellant No.l shall not constitute t\TcritXZfSng market value ofthe acquired land and the Land Acquisition Collector shall befree to make determination by taking into consideration the Zta^factors and the evidence.hich may in an appropriate case include circle rates. s s; finding ofthe Reference Court. 6The f^r numose ofstamgdut^mddnotJm^ basis fJ^J^rminine the marketvalue. Resu tantly, we are allowed and the matters are remitted to the High Courtp deciding afresh." (Emphasis Supplied)

3 Learned counsels for the parties submit that the impugned judgment ofthe Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded backto the Reference Courtwithliberty to the partiesto lead additional evidenceofthe parties withrespectto the marketvalue ofthe land and for passingafresh order. 4, The impugned judgment ofthe Reference Court is set aside an t e matter is remanded backto the Reference Court with liberty to the partiesto lead additional evidence in terms ofthe aforesaid judgment ofthe Supreme Court and the Reference Court shall pass afresh order in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed ofin above terms.

5 Learned counselsfor the appellants inboththe appeals seekrefund of the Courtfees under Section 13 ofthe CourtFeesAct, 1870 read withOrder XLIRule23 ofthe Code ofCivilProcedure, 1908whichprovides forrefund ofthe Court fees. ConsideringthattheReference Courthad 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 ofthe Courtfees is allowed and the registry shall grant acertificate authorismgthe appellants inboththe appeals to receive backthe full Courtfees paid onthe memorandum ofappeals from the Collector ofStamps.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants seek direction with respect to the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited, the appellantwould not be required to deposit/pay the same. However, in case, the decretal amount has aheady beendeposited with the Reference Courtbut not yet released, theReference Courtshall retain the amountinfixed deposit till fresh adjudication. In case the decretal amount has been released to the private respondent(s),the private respondent(s) is/are permittedto retamthe decretal amount till fresh order is passed by the Reference Court subject to the private respondent(s) furnishing sufficientsecurity 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 Courtbe filed by the private respondent(s) before the Reference Court within aperiod 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 fiimished by the private respondent(s) a before the Reference Court. In the event of the failure of the pnvlte respondents)to file anundertakingandthesecurityw,thine.ghtweeks,te 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 beforetheReference Courton Ol"February, 2018 Learnedcounselsfortheparties submitthattheyhavenoteddownthe next date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be required for appearancebefore theReference Court.

8. Pending application is disposed of..

9. Copy ofthis orderbe givendmtito counsel for the parti^underthe signature ofthe Court Master.

JANUARY 11,2018 dk *«

U. MIDHA, J.