Bhupender Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

22.03.2018 LA.APP. 466/2015 and L.A. APP. 321/2016

¶1' The appellant and respondent no.l have challenged the judgment dated 28^*^ August, 2015 whereby the Reference Court has,enhancedthe compensation by applying the circle rates.

¶2Learned counsel for Union of India submits that the Reference Court .' has appliedthe circlerates as the marketvalue of the land in question.It is. submittedthat the SupremeCourtin the recentjudgment of Union ofIndia A V. SavitriDevi, 2017 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 compehsation. 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 portion of the judgment of Supreme Court is reproduced hereunder: - "2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and order as the circle rates, that has been relied upon, could not have been made . , the basis for determination of the compensation. In the - 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 of the property. It , may vary considerins the nature and situation of the land. Thus, the judgment 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. ' - ,5. This court in Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. [(2009) 15 see 769], has laid down thus: :• ^ "4Lit should howeyer.be noted that as contrasted from 'the assessment ofmarket yalue 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 marketyalue-indifferentareas byExpert Committees.

¶44One of the recognised methodsfor determination of market value is with reference to opinion of experts. The " estimation,ofmarket value by such statutorily constituted ' ': expert committees, as expert evidence, can, therefore, • form the bqsisfor 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 evidence only ifthey are assessedby stdtutorily appointed Expert Committee's, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (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. Heince, the principle in Jawajee Naganatham will apply and they will not be ofany assistance,for. determining the market value. Further, they do not purport to be. the market value for 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. 1(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 administration toprescribe circle rates as the criteria.for fixing markef value or for determination of the compensation. The 1894 Act contains a , comprehensivemechanismfor fixing market value and determination of the compensation payable. Anyperson, whofeels aggrievedhy 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 factorfor fixing marketvalue 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 byapplication ofobjective criteria. •

¶8In the result, the appeals are disposedof 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 criteriafor fixing marketvalue of the acquired land and the LandAcquisitionCollectorshall befree to : make determination by taking into consideration the relevant factors and the evidence which may in an appropriatecase includecirclerates." I' , , ' ' ^ .

¶5It was submittedby learned counselappearingfor theparties that it would be appropriateto permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. The High Court may permit the parties to adducethe evidencebefore the ReferenceCourtand callfor the finding oftheReferenceCourt.

¶6The circleratesfor purposeofstampduty couldnot have been made the basis for determining 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 Courtfor deciding afresh." • (Emphasis Supplied) ,

¶3Learnedcounselsfor the partiessubmitthat the impugnedjudgment of theReferenceCourtbe set aside'andthe matterbe remandedbackto the , ; Q - Reference Court for recording of additionalevidence of the parties with respectto the marketvalueofthe landand for passingafreishorder. 4; The impugnedjudgmentofthe ReferenceCourt is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for recording additional, evidenqein terms of the aforesaidjudgmentof the SuprenieCourt and the Reference Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law.. The appealsare disposedofin aboveterms. ^

¶5-Learnedcounselsfor the appellantsin boththe appealsseekrefiindof -• the Courtfees underSection13 ofthe CourtFeesAct, 1870readwithOrder XLI Rule 23.ofthe CodeofCivilProcedure,1908 whichprovidesfor refund ofthe Courtfees. Coiisideringthatthe 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 memorandumofappealsfromthe CollectorofStamps.

¶6Learnedcounselfor the appellantsseek directionwith respectto the decretal,amount. In case the decretal amount has riot been deposited,the appellantwouldnot be requiredto deposit/paythe same. However,in case, the decretal amount,has already been deposited with or attached by the 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 decretalamounttiU freshorderis passedby the ReferenceCourt subjectto the privaterespondent(s)furnishing sufficient securityto the satisfactionof the ReferenceCourt with an undertakingto r deposit the amount along with such interest as the Reference Court may direct in the event of the appellant succeeding before the Reference Court. In such cases, an undertaking along with the sufficient security.'to the' satisfactionof.the Reference Court be filed by the private respondent(s) , beforethe ReferenceCourt withina periodof eight weeks from today. The learnedReferenceCourt shall not permitthe private respondent(s)to lead •' ' ' . additional evidence till the undertaking and the security in terms,of this . order is furnishedby the privaterespondent(sjbefore the ReferenceCourt. In the eventof the failureofthe privaterespondent(s)to file anundertaking ; and the security within eight weeks, the appellant would be at liberty to initiate executionproceedingsfor recovery of the decretal arnountfrom the private respondent(s) in accordance with law. . , ,

¶7The parties shall appearbeforethe ReferenceCourt on May, 2018. Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have noted down,the next - date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearancewould be required for appearance before the Reference Court.

8., Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master. MARCH 22,2018 ak

J.R. MIDHA, J.

• •• u $-39&47. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DiELHI + LA.APP. 466/2015 • BHUPENDER KUMAR JAIN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Adv. , ,/ + 47" % versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APiP. 321/2016 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus . ..... Respondents Mr. SanjayKumarPathak,Ms. K.. KaomUdi Kirafi, Mr, Suhil Kumar Jha, Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for Rl. Appellant Mr. SanjayKumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. BHUPENDER KUMAR JAIN & ANR; ,.... Respondents Through: Mr. Jai'Sahai Endlaw, Adv. - CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA