Union of India v. Mahender Kumar & Anr

ORDER

22.03.2018 LA.APP. 468/2015 and L.A. AFP. 316/2016

¶1The appellant and respondent no.l have challenged the judgment dated 27"^ August, 2015 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation by applying the circle rates.

¶2Learned counsel for Union of India submits that the Reference Court (o has appliedthe circlerates as the marketvalue ofthe land in question.It is submittedthat the SupremeCourt in the recentjudgmentofUnionofIndia V. SavitriDevi, 2017 SCC OnLine 1400 decidedon 21'' September,2017 set aside the awards based on circlerates holdingthat the circlerates could not have been made basis for determinationof compensation. The Supreme Court remanded back the matter with liberty to the parties to adduce additionalevidencewith respectto the market value of the land. Relevant portionofthejudgmentof SupremeCourtis reproducedhereunder:- "2. After hearing learned counselfor 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 basis for determination of the compensation. In suidelines. 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 ofthe property. It may vary considering the nature and situation of the land. Thus. the judgmentof the Hi2h Courtcannotbesustained.In addition, there is nothing to indicate that any statutory committee has determinedthe said rate on a scientificbasis and methodical assessment ofmarket value.

¶3This courtin Lai Chandvs. Union ofIndia &Anr. [(2009) 15 SCC 769], has laid down thus: "4Lit shouldhowever be noted that as contrastedfrom the assessmentofmarketvaluecontainedin non-statutory Basic ValuationRegisters, the positionmay 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 stamp Acts and the Rules thereunder, provide for scientific and methodical assessment of marketvalueindifferentareas byExpert Committees.

¶44One of the recognisedmethodsfor determinationof marketvalue is with referenceto opinionofexperts. 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 a relevant piece of evidence. 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 evidenceonly iftheyare assessedbystatutorilyappointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or road-wise, or area-wise, or village-wise)and finalised after inviting objectionsandpublishedin the Gazette.Be thatas it may.

¶46In the instant case, there is nothing to show the circle rates have been determinedby any statutorilyappointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, principle inJawajee Naganatham willapply and theywill not be ofany assistancefor determiningthe marketvalue. Further, they do notpurport to be the market valuefor 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."

¶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 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 administrationtoprescribe circle rates as the criteriafor fixing market value orfor determinationof compensation. The 1894 Act contains a comprehensive mechanismfor fixing market value and determinationof the compensationpayable. Any person, whofeels aggrievedby the award ofthe LandAcquisition Collectoror the determinationmade 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 Governmentto adopt the circle rates as an important factor for fixing market value of the acquiredland. The power vested in the Collector to determine market value of the acquiredland cannot be controlledby a judicial flat and each case has to be decided by the concerned authority byapplication ofobjectivecriteria.

¶8In the result, the appealsare disposedof by makingit clear that the circlerates referredto in notificationdated

23.2.2001 issued by appellant No.l shall not constitute the sole criteriafor fixing market value of the acquired landand the LandAcquisitionCollectorshall befree to make determination by taking into consideration the relevant factors and the evidence which may in an appropriate case include circle rates. "

¶5It was submittedby learnedcounselappearingfor theparties that it would be appropriate to permit the parties to adduce additionalevidence. The High Court may permit the parties to adducethe evidencebeforethe ReferenceCourtand callfor the finding ofthe ReferenceCourt.

¶6The circle rates for purpose ofstamp dutycould not have been made the basis for determiningthe marketvalue. Resultantly,we set aside the judgmentpassed by the High Court. The appeals are allowedand the mattersare remittedto the High Courtfor deciding afresh. " (Emphasis Supplied) Q

¶3Learnedcounselsfor the parties submitthat the impugnedjudgment of the ReferenceCourtbe set aside and the matterbe remandedbackto the Reference Court for recordingof additional evidence of the parties with respectto the marketvalueofthe landand for passingafreshorder.

¶4The impugnedjudgmentofthe ReferenceCourt is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for recordingadditional evidencein terms ofthe aforesaidjudgmentofthe SupremeCourt and the Reference Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The appealsare disposedof inaboveterms.

¶5Learnedcounselsfor the appellantsin boththe appealsseekrefundof the Courtfees underSection13 ofthe CourtFees Act, 1870read with Order XLI Rule 23 ofthe Code ofCivilProcedure,1908whichprovidesfor refund ofthe Courtfees. Consideringthat the ReferenceCourthad disposedofthe referenceon apreliminarypointby takingthe circlerates and the remandis being made of this preliminarypoint of law, the prayer for refund of the Courtfees is allowedand the registryshallgrantacertificateauthorisingthe appellantsin boththe appealsto receivebackthe full Courtfees paidon the memorandumof appealsfrom theCollectorof Stamps.

¶6Learnedcounsel for the appellantsseek directionwith respectto the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited,the appellantwouldnot be requiredto deposit/paythe same. However,in case, the decretalamounthas alreadybeendepositedwithorattachedby ReferenceCourt but not yet released,the ReferenceCourt shall retain the amountin fixed deposittill fresh adjudication. In case the decretalamount has been released to the private respondent(s),the private respondent(s) is/arepermittedto retainthe decretalamounttill fresh orderis passedby the ReferenceCourt subjectto the private respondent(s)furnishing sufficient securityto the satisfactionof the ReferenceCourt with an undertakingto deposit the amount along with such interest as the Reference Court may direct in the event of the appellantsucceedingbefore the ReferenceCourt. In such cases, an undertaking along with the sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court be filed by the private respondent(s) before the ReferenceCourt within a period of eight weeks from today. The ^ learned ReferenceCourt shall not permit the private respondent(s)to lead additional evidence till the undertaking and the security in terms of this order is furnishedby the private respondent(s)before the ReferenceCourt. In the eventof the failureof the privaterespondent(s)to file an undertaking and the security within eight weeks, the appellant would be at liberty to initiateexecutionproceedingsfor recoveryof the decretalamount from the privaterespondent(s)in accordancewithlaw.

¶7The partiesshall appearbeforethe ReferenceCourton May, 2018. Learnedcounsels for the parties submit that they have noted down the next Y date of hearingand no fresh notice for their appearancewould be required for appearancebeforethe ReferenceCourt.

¶8Copy of this orderbe given dasti to counselfor the partiesunderthe signature of the Court Master. J.R.MIDHA,J. MARCH 22,2018 ak

r $-41 & 42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 468/2015 + % MAHENDER KUMAR Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APP. 316/2016 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus Appellant Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Adv. Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for R1. Mr. Rajan Tyagi and Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advs. for R2/EDMC. Appellant Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. MAHENDERKUMAR&ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA