Jyotsana Gupta v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

21.12.2017 C.M. AppI. 46819/2017 in L.A. AFP. 288/2016

¶1Issue notice. Learnedcounselfor respondentacceptsnotice.

¶2The applicationfor early hearingis allowedand the appeal are taken up for hearing today itself. LA.APP. 288/2016 and L.A. AFP. 293/2017

¶3The appellant and respondent no.l have challengedthe judgment dated 27^ November,2015 wherebythe ReferenceCourt has enhancedthe compensationby applyingthe circle rates.

¶4Learned counsel for Union of India submits that the Reference Court has appliedthe circlerates as the marketvalue ofthe land in question.It is submittedthatthe SupremeCourtin the recentjudgmentof Union ofIndia V. SavitriDevi, 2017 SCC OnLine1400decidedon 21®^ 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 additionalevidencewith respectto the market value of the land. Relevant portionofthejudgmentofSupremeCourtis reproducedhereunder:- "2. After hearing learned counselfor the parties, we deem it appropriateto setaside the impugnedjudgmentandorderas the circle rates, that has been relied upon, could not have been made the basis for determination of the compensation. In the guidelines, 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 of the market value of the property. It may vary considerins the nature and situation of the land. Thus, the iudsment of the 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.

¶3This court in Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. [(2009) 15 SCC 769], has laid down thus: "4Lit should however be noted that as contrasted from theassessmentofmarketvaluecontainedin non-statutory Basic ValuationRegisters,the position may be different, where the guideline market values are determined by Expert Committees constitutedunder the State Stamp Law, by following the detailed procedure laid down under the relevant rules, and are published in the State Gazette.Such state stampActs and theRules thereunder, provide for scientific and methodical assessment of marketvalue in differentareas byExpert Committees.

¶44One of the recognisedmethodsfor determinationof market value is with referenceto opinionof experts. The estimationof marketvalue by such statutorilyconstituted expert committees, as expert evidence, can, therefore, form the basisfor determiningthe market value in land acquisitioncases, as a relevantpiece of evidence.It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guidelinemarketvalue. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevantpiece of evidenceonlyiftheyare assessedbystatutorilyappointed 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.Bethatas it may.

¶46In 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 principlein JawajeeNaganathamwillapplyandtheywill notbeofanyassistancefor determiningthe marketvalue. Further, they do notpurport to be the market valuefor lands in rural areas on the outskirts of Delhi, nor the marketvaluesrelating to Rithala village. The circle rates relate to urban/city areas in Delhi and are wholly irrelevant."

¶4In Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Aiav Kumar & Ors. 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 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 undertakenby the High Courtfor forcingthe administrationtoprescribecircleratesas the criteriafor fixing market value orfor determinationof the compensation. The 1894 Act contains a Q comprehensivemechanismfor fixing market value and determination of the compensation payable. Anyperson, 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 justificationfor the High Court to have compelledthe Government to adopt the circle rates as an important factor for fixing market value of the acquiredland. The power vestedin the Collectorto determinemarketvalue of the acquiredland cannot be controlledby a judicial fiat and each case has to be decided by the concerned authority by application ofobjective criteria.

¶8In the result, the appeals are disposed of by making it clear that the circle rates referred to in notificationdated

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 befree to make determination by taking into consideration the relevant factors and the evidence which may in an appropriate case includecircle rates. "

¶5It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for 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 evidencebeforethe ReferenceCourt and callfor the finding ofthe Reference Court.

¶6The circleratesforpurposeofstamvdutycouldnothave been made the basis for determinim the market value. Resultantly, we set aside the judgmentpassed by the High Court. The appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted to the High Court for deciding afresh. " (Emphasis Supplied)

¶5Learnedcounselsfor the partiessubmitthat the impugnedjudgment of the Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Reference Court for recordingof additionalevidence of the parties with respectto the marketvalueofthe landand for passinga freshorder.

¶6The impugnedjudgmentof the ReferenceCourt is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for recording additional evidencein terms of the aforesaidjudgmentof the SupremeCourt and the Reference Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The appealsare disposedof in aboveterms.

¶7Learnedcounselsfor the appellantsin both the appealsseekrefundof the Court fees under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which provides for refund of the Courtfees. Consideringthatthe ReferenceCourthad disposedof the referenceon a preliminarypointby takingthe circlerates and the remandis being made of this preliminarypoint of law, the prayer for refund of the Courtfees is allowedand the registryshallgranta certificateauthorisingthe appellantsin boththe appealsto receivebackthe full Courtfees paid on the memorandumof appealsfrom the Collectorof Stamps.

¶8Learnedcounsel for the appellantsseek directionwith respectto the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited, the appellantwould not be requiredto deposit/paythe same. However,in case, the decretalamounthas alreadybeendepositedwiththe ReferenceCourtbut not yet released,the ReferenceCourtshallretainthe amountin fixeddeposit till fresh adjudication. In case the decretalamounthas been releasedto the privaterespondent(s),the privaterespondent(s)is/arepermittedto retainthe decretalamounttill fresh order is passedby the ReferenceCourtsubjectto the privaterespondent(s)furnishing sufficientsecurityto the satisfactionof the ReferenceCourt with an undertakingto depositthe amount along with such interestas the ReferenceCourtmay directin the eventofthe appellant succeedingbeforethe ReferenceCourt. In such cases,an undertakingalong withthe sufficientsecurityto the satisfactionofthe ReferenceCourtbe filed by the privaterespondent(s)beforethe ReferenceCourt withina periodof eight weeks from today. The learned Reference Court shall not permit the private respondent(s)to lead additionalevidence till the undertakingand 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 undertakingand the securitywithineightweeks,the appellantwould be at libertyto initiateexecutionproceedingsfor recovery of the decretal amount from the private respondent(s) in accordance with . j law.

¶9The partiesshall appear before the ReferenceCourt on 29**^ January, 2018. Learned counsels for the parties submitthat they have noted down the next date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be required for appearance before the Reference Court.

¶10Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master. rsk -

J.R.MIDHA, J. DECEMBER 21,2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 288/2016 UNION OF INDIA Appellant Through: Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Kushal Raj later, Advocates versus JYOTSANA GUPTA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocatefor respondent No. 1 Mr. Mohd. Faisal, Advocate for respondent No.2 + LA.APP. 293/2016 JYOTSANA GUPTA Appellant Through: Mr. S.K. Rout, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA