Raghubir Singh v. Union of India & Anr

1. Issue notice. Learned counsel for respondent accepts notice.

2. The applications for early hearing are allowed, and the appeals are takenup for hearing today itself.. 2017:DHC:8862 T.A.APP.31:^/2016 and T.A.APP.89/2017

3. The appellant and respondent no.l have challenged the judgment dated 08'" June, 2016 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the compensationby applyingthe circlerates.

4. Learned counselfor Union ofIndiasubmits thattheReference Court hasappliedthecircleratesasthe marketvalueofthelandin question.Itis submittedthattheSupremeCourtintherecentjudgmentofVnion ofIndia V.SavitriDevi,2017SCCOnLine1400decidedon21"'September,2017set asidetheawardsbased oncircle rates holdingthatthe circle ratescould 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 respecttothe market value ofthe land. Relevant portionofthejudgmentofSupremeCourtisreproducedhereunder;- "2. After hearing learned counselfor the parties, we deem it appropriatetosetasidetheimpugnedjudgmentandorderqsM circle rates, that rel'edunon.could nothave been made,i,c hnci. for determination of the compensation. In the m,Mines,the circlerates have been providedforthe purpose oj ccnment ofStamp duty, but that cannot be made the basis to 'iLlffffnetheactualpriceofthe marketvalueofthe proper^.It „r,rv considering the nature and situation ofthe land Ihus, the iudvmentofthe High Courtcannot he sustained.In addition, there is nothing to indicate that any statutory committee has determined the said rate on a scientific basis and methodical assessmentofmarketvalue.

3. This court in Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia & Anr.[(2009)15 SCC 769], has laid down thus: "41.lt should however be noted that as contrastedfrom the assessmentofmarketvalue 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 marketvalue in differentareas by.ExpertCommittees.

44. One ofthe recognised methodsfor determination of market value is with reference to opinion ofexperts. The estimation ofmarketvalue bysuch statutorily constituted expert committees, as expert evidence, can, therefore form the basisfor 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, hpwever, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidenceonlyiftheyareassessed bystatutorilyappointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessmentprocedure(eitherstreetwise, or road-wise,or area-wise, or village-wise) and finalised after inviting objectionsandpublishedin the Gazette.Bethatasitmay.

46. In the instantcase,there is nothing toshow the circle rates have been determined by any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, the principle inJawajeeNaganatham willapplyandthey will notbeofanyassistancefordeterminingthe marketvalue. Further, they do notpurport to be the market valuefor lands in rural areas on the outskirts ofDelhi, nor the marketvalues relating to Rithala village. The circle rates relate to. urban/city areas in Delhi and are wholly irrelevant."

4. Tn Government(NCTofDelhi) dr Ors. v. Aiav Kumar & Ors. [{2014)13see 7341 it was held thatcircle rates could notform the basis. Compensation has to be determined on the basis of objective criteria, this courtobserved: "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 forfixing market value orfor determination of the compensation. The 1894 Act contains a comprehensive mechanism forfixing market value and determination ofthe compensation payable. Any person, whofeelsaggrievedbytheawardoftheLandAcquisition 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 justificationfor the High Court to have compelled he Government to adopt the circle rates as an important factorforfixing market value ofthe acquired land. Ihe power vested in the Collector to determine marketvalue ofthe acquired land cannot be controlled by ajudicial fiat and each case has to be decided by the concerned authority byapplication ofobjective criteria.

8. In the result, the appeals are disposed ofby making it, clear thatthe circle rates referred to.in notification dated 23.2.2001 issued by appellant No.l shall not constitute the sole criteriaforfixing market value ofthe acquire land and the Land Acquisition Collector shall befee to make determination by taking into consideration the relevant factors and the evidence which may in an appropriatecase include circle rates.

5. It wassubmitted by learned counsel appearingfor theparties 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 Courtand callfor the findingofthe Reference Court. (5. The circle ratesfor purpose ofstamp dutv could nothave been made the basis for determining the market value. Resultantly, we set aside thejudgmentpassed by the High Court. The appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted to the High Courtfor deciding afresh." (Emphasis Supplied)

5. Leamed'counseis for the parties submit that the impugned judgment ofthe Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Reference Court for recording of additional evidence of the parties with respecttothemarketvalueofthelandandforpassingafteshorder.

6. The impugnedjudgmentofthe Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court forrecording additional evidence interms ofthe aforesaidjudgmentofthe Supreme Courtand the Reference Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed ofin aboveterms.,

7. Learnedcounselsfortheappellantsinboththeappealsseekreftmdof theCourtfeesunderSection13oftheCourtFeesAct,1870read withOrder XLIRule23oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908whichprovidesforrefund ofthe Courtfees. ConsideringthattheReferenceCourthad disposedofthe referenceon apreliminary pointbytakingthecircle ratesandtheremand is being made ofthis preliminary point oflaw,the.prayer for refund ofthe Courtfeesisallowedandtheregistryshallgrantacertificateauthonsingthe appellantsinboththeappealstoreceivebackthefullCourtfeespaidonthe memorandum otappealsfrom the Collector ofStamps.

8. Learned counsel forthe appellants seek direction with respectto the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited,the appellantwouldnotberequiredto deposit/paythesame. However,incase, thedecretalamounthasalreadybeen deposited withtheReferenceCourtbut notyetreleased,theReferenceCourtshallretaintheamountinfixeddeposit till fresh adjudication. In case the decretal amounthas been released to the,private respondent(s),the private respondent(s)is/are permittedto retainthe decretal amount till fresh order is passed by the Reference Court subject to the private respondent(s)furnishing sufficientsecurity tothe 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 beforethe Reference Court. In such cases,an undertaking along with the sufficientsecurity to the satisfaction ofthe Reference Courtbefiled \ \' bythe privaterespondent(s)beforetheReferenceCourtwithinaperiod of eight weeksfromtoday.Thelearned Reference Courtshallnotpermitthe privaterespondent(s)toleadadditionalevidencetilltheundertakingandthe security in terms ofthis order is furnished by the private respondent(s) before the Reference Court. In the event of the failure ofThe private respondent(s)tofilean.undertakingandthesecuritywithineightweeks,the appellant would be atliberty to initiate execution proceedingsforrecovery ofthe decretal amountfrom the private respondent(s)in accordance with law.

9. The parties shall appear before the Reference Courton 30 January.