Rajesh v. Union of India & Anr.

1. Issuenotice. Learnedcounsel for respondentaccepts notice.

2. The applications for early hearing are allowed and the appeals are 2017:DHC:8776 / taken up for hearing today itself. T.A.APP. 30^/2017 and I A. APP. 92/2017

3. The appellant and respondent no.l have challenged the judgment dated 01" July, 2016 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation by applying the circle rates.

4. Learned counsel for Union ofIndia 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 in the recent judgmentof Union ofIndia

V. SavitriDevi, 2017 SCC OnLine 1400 decided on 21" September, 2017 set aside the awards based on circle rates holding thatthe 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 ofthe land. Relevant portionofthejudgmentofSupremeCourtisreproducedhereunder: - "2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties ve deem it appropriate to setaside the impugnedjudgmentandorder gsJM circle thnt ha, been -'""d"rnn could not have been made, the for determiyition of the compensation. In the the circle have been providedfor thepur^se of nf,tnmn duty, hut that cannot he made the basis to w,he actualprice ofthe marketvalueofthe Proper^-It mm; ^nrv considering the nature and situation ofthe land. Thus^,u. ofthe ffir'- -""""II"-- sustained. In aMtion there is nothing to indicate that any statutory determined the said rate on ascientific 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 y^here the guideline market values Expert Committees constituted under the State Stamp Law by following the detailed procedure laid down under the relevant rules, and are published mthe State Gazette. Such state stamp Acts and the Rules thereunder, provide for scientific and methodical assessment oj 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 basisfor determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as arelevantpiece 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 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 ofDelhi, nor the market values relating to Rithala village. The circle rates relate to urban/city areas in Delhi and are wholly irrelevant." 4 nnvP.mme«' fNCT nfDelhi) Ar Ori v Ajay Kumar &Ors.. mm[4])13 see 734] it held that circle rates could not form thp basis. Compensation ho^ tn he determined on the basis of nhfpctive 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 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 orfor 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 the award ofthe LandAcquisition Collector or the determination made by the Reference Court can avail remedy either by filing 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 ^y^rtmt factor for fixing market value ofthe acquired land The power vested in the Collector to determine market value of the acquired land cannot be controlled by ajudicial 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 ofthe acquired land and the Land Acquisition 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 PfJ^s to adduce the evidence before the Reference Court and callfor the finding ofthe Reference Court.

6. Thp. circle ratp.s for purpose ofstamp duty could not have been made the basi^ for determi^^^^ fhp. market value. Resu tantly, we set aside the judgment passed by the High are allowed and the matters are remitted to the High Courtjo decidingafresh." (Emphasis Supplied)

5. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the impugned judgment ofthe Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the A Reference Court for recording of additional evidence of the parties with respectto the marketvalueofthe landand for passingafresh order.

6. 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 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. ^ 7. Learned counsels for the appellants inboththe appeals seekrefiindof the Court fees under Section 13 ofthe CourtFees Act, 1870readwith Order XLI Rule 23 ofthe CodeofCivil Procedure, 1908which provides for refund ofthe Court fees. Consideringthatthe Reference Court had disposed ofthe reference on apreliminary point by taking the circle rates and the remand is being made ofthis preliminary point of law, the prayer for refund of the Court fees is allowed and the registry shall grant acertificate authorisingthe appellants in boththe appealsto receivebackthe fiill Courtfees paid onthe memorandum ofappeals firom the Collector ofStamps. W 8. Learned counsel for the appellants seek direction with respect to the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited, the appellantwould notbe requiredto deposit/pay the same. However, in case, flie decretal amounthas already beendeposited withthe Reference Courtbut not yet released, theReferenceCourtshall retainthe amount infixed 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 theprivaterespondent(s)furnishing sufficientsecuritytothe satisfactionof the Reference Court with an undertaking to deposit the amount along with such interest as the Reference Court may direct in the eventofthe appellant succeedingbeforethe Reference Court. In such cases, an undertaking along vo with the sufficient security tothe 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 privaterespondent(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 pnvate 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) maccordance with law.

9. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on SO" January,

2018. Learned counsels for the parties submitthatthey have noted down the next date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be required for appearance before the Reference Court.