Union of India v. Anand Prakash & Anr

ORDER v.. V '/V\ " 22:03.2018-V LA.AjPP. 467/2015 and L.A. APP. 324/2016

¶1• 'The appellant.and-respondent'no.!have challenged-thejudgment • ,.dated'28^'' August,;2015 whereby tlie,ReferenceiCourt has^enhanced;the : compensationbyapplyingthecirclerates. I '. ' . 2/ - has appliedthe circlerates as the'marketvalueofthe land in~qiiestion.It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Union ofIndia V. Savitri Devi, 2Q\1 SCC OnLine 1400 decidedon 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 additional evidence with respect to the market value of the land. Relevant portionof thejudgment of SupremeCourt is reproducedhereunder:- ,"2. After hearing learned counsel for 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 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 consider ins 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 rat^ on a scientific basis and methodical assessment ofmarket value.

¶3This court in Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. [(2009) 15 . see 769], has laid down thus: . "4Lit should however be noted that as contrasted from the assessment ofmarket value contained in non-statutory Basic ValuationRegisters, 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 market value in different areas byExpert Committees.

¶44One of the recognisedmethodsfor determinationof market value is with reference to opinion of experts. The estimationof marketvalue by such statutorilyconstituted , expert committees., as expert evidence, can, therefore, form the basis for 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 presurnption 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 and published 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, 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 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.. [(2014)13 see 7341 it was held that circle rates could not form the basis. Compensationhas to be determined on the basis of objective criteria, this court observed: "7.We have heard_ Shri L.N. Rao, learned Additional ' •' SolicitorGeneralappearing,for the appellantsand 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 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 administrationtoprescribe circle rates as the criteria for fixing market value or for determinationof , compensation. The 1894 Act contains a comprehensivemechanismfor fixing market value and determinationof the compensationpayable. Any person, whofeels aggrievedby the awardofthe LandAcquisition 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 factorforfixing marketvalue of the acquiredland. The powervestedin the Collectorto determinemarketvalue of the acquiredland cannot be controlledby a judicicil fiat and each case has to be decided by the concerned authorityby applicationofobjectivecriteria.

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

23.2.2001 issued by appellant No.1 shall not'constitute the sole criteriafor fixing market Value of the acquired land and the Land AcquisitionCollectorshall befree to make determination by taking info consideration the relevant factors and the evidence which may ,in an appropriatecase includecirclerates."• '

¶5It was submittedby learnedcounselapp^ring for theparties that it would be appropriateto permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. The High Court may permit theparties to adduce the evidencebeforethe ReferenceCourtand callfor the finding oftheReferenceCourt.

¶6The circle rates for purposeofstampduty couldnot have been made the basis for determinin2'themarketvalue. Resultantly,we ' set aside the judgmentpassed by the High Court. The appeals , are allowedand the matters are remittedto the High Courtfor deciding,afi-esh." - ' ' • I ' (Emphasis Supplied)

¶3Learnedcounselsfor the parties submit that the impugnedjudgment • • ' • • of the Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to.the Reference Court for recording of additionalevidence of the parties with respectto the marketvalueofthe landand for passinga freshorder,

¶4The impugnedjudgmentof the ReferenceCourt is set aside and.the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for recording additional evidencein terms of the aforesaidjudgnientof the SupremeCourt and the Reference"Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. , The ,, appealsare disposedof in aboveterms. '5, Learnedcounselsfor the appellantsinboththe appealsseekrefundof the Court fees under Section 13 of the CourtFees Act, 1870 read with Order , I •' XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908which provides for refund ofthe Courtfees. Consideringthatthe ReferenceCourthad disposedofthe referenceon a preliminarypointby takingthe circlerates and the remandis being made of this preliminarypoint of law, the prayer for refund ofthe Courtfees is allowedand the registryshallgranta certificateauthorisingthe appellalntsin boththe appealsto receiveback'thefull Coiirtfees paid on the .• ..memorandumof appealsfrom the Collectorof Stamps. ' ' 6. Learnedcounselfor the appellantsseek directionwith respecttothe decretal amount. In case the-decretalamount has not been deposited,the appellantwouldnot be requiredto deposit/paythe same. However,in case, the decretal amount has already been deposited with the or attached by • ReferenceCourt but not yet released,the ReferenceCourt shall,retain the amountin fixed deposittill fresh adjudication. In case the decretalaniount 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)fumishiiig sufficient : . ; • : • • securityto the satisfactionof the ReferenceCourt with an undertakingto deposit the, amount along with such interest as the Reference Court may directin the event of the appellantsucceedingbeforethe 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) • ) beforethe ReferenceCourtwithina periodof eightweeks,from today. The learnedReferenceCourt shall not permitthe private respondent(s)to lead additional evidence till the undertakingand the security in terms of. this order is furnishedby the privaterespondent(s)beforethe ReferenceCourt. In the eventof the failureof the privaterespondent(s)to file anundertaking. and the security within eight weeks, the appellantwould,be at liberty to initiate'executionproceedingsfor recoveryofthe decretalamountfrom the privaterespondent(s)inaccordancewith law.

¶7The partiesshallappearbeforethe ReferenceCourton 1^^ May, 2018. Learnedcounselsfor.the partiessubmitthat they have noted down the next date of hearingand no fresh notice for their appearancewould be required for appearancebeforetheReferenceCourt. > .

¶8Copy ofthis orderbe givendastito counselfor the partiesunderthe signatureof the Court,Master. • MARCH 22,2018 ak

J.R. MIDHA, J.

•.. I, * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 467/2015 z \ AO ^ V: ' -:v;Appellant ^ Through: Mr; Jai^Sahai.Endlaw,Adv. - , . 'versus •,; ,• V ' ^ • '' : UNlONOFINfelA^AlSnR: ;: .V : ; ....:Respondents; V i • : ^ Through; , , ' ^ , ,. > ; .• .' ' Ka0mudiKiran,Mr. SMilKumar \ Jha,.Mr.KushalRaj Tatef,Mr. M;^ .Alditarj Advs.-'fbrRi:. • ' •' '<LA.APP.324/2016'- "r, ^~ ; ' -'.V UNIC)N01^ INDIA .....Appellant, ^ ; \ " • , Through;"/ Mr. SanjayKumarP^a^^ Ms. K: :: : - • . I - - 'Ka0mudiKiran/Mr.SuriirKumar -. -V ::jh^,Mr:KushalR^Tate^^ \ Akhtar,A^s.. , • ' • ^ ^ .'yyersus ' , " ^ ' AJ^ANDPRAKA.SH&ANR - , \ Respondents V - Through; Mr. Jai SahaiEndlaw,Adv. ': •.'-"•GORAM:.'-" V ^ -• HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA ^ ,