Mahender Kumar v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER 22;03.2018 A LA.APP. 460/2015 and L.A. APP. 323/2016

¶1The appellant and respondent no.1 have challenged ;the,judgment dated 28^*^ August, 2015 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the ' cohipensationby applyingthecirclerates. . /' V •: -" ; ; 2?'--, has applied the circle rates as the market value of the land in.question. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the feceiit judgment of Union ofIndia V. SavitriDevi, 2017.SCCOnLine 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 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 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 considering the nature and situation of the land. Thus, the iudsnient 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 LalChand 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 Valuation Registers, the position may be different, where the guideline market values are determined by Expert Conirnittees 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 differentareas byExpert Committees.

¶44One of the recognised methodsfor determination of market value is with reference to opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted 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 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 ohly iftheyare assessed bystatutorily appointed Expert Committees, 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.

¶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., . 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 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 undertaken by the High Courtfor forcing, the administration to prescribe circle rates as the criteria for fixing market value or for determination of the compensation. The 1894 Act contains a ] comprehensive mechanism for fixing market value and determination 6f the compensation payable. Any person, whofeels aggrieved by the award of the 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 ' justification for the High Court to have compelled the Government to adopt the circle rates as an important factor for fixing market value of the acquired land. The power vested in the Collector to determine market value of the acquired land cannot be controlled by a judicial fiat and each case has to be decided by the concerned authority by application ofobjective criteria. I , f

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

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 include circle 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 HigU Court may permit the parties to adduce the evidence before the Reference Court and callfor the finding ofthe Reference Court.

¶6The circle rates forpurpose ofstamp duty could not have been made the basis for determinin2 the market value. Resultantly^ we set aside the judgment passed by the High Court,, The appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted to the High Court for deciding afresh." • , • (Emphasis Supplied) \ 'V > )• • .• r ' \' - / , N .1 . ,3,.'' •Learnedcounselsfor the parties submitthat theWpughedjudgment . . of the Reference Court'be.set^aside and the/matter be,renianded back to the;; ^ • Reference Court for recording of Additional evidence.of the parties with, . ,respecttotheimarketvalueofthelandMd for passinga freshorder. ;• r ' 4. The impugnedjudgment of the ReferenceCovirt is set aside and the , "v , m^ter is: remanded ,back to the Reference Cburt for recording-;additional /evidence in terrhs of the .afoi-esaidjudgment, of the. Supreme "Court and - ^Reference Court siiall passv-a fresh orderin acco'rdancewith'law. ' The^ ' '' , • .appealsare disposedofin.aboveternis. ^^^

5.., Learned,counselsfoi: the appellantsin both.the.apjpeals,seekrefiindof J V • the Courtfees.jLinderSectionis ofthe CoiirtFeesAct, 1870readyvithOrder ' XLLRule23 ofthe Code.ofCivilProcedure,,1908whichproyides^ ^ .. , . ' ofthe Courtfees';vborisideringthatthe ReferenceCourthaddisposedoftile; ;; - • ' reference'on a preliminarypoint by taking'the'cirple rates andthe remancjis; -. ;1;, ' being made of this preiimina^yvpbintof law, the ,prayer for refund of the ; ,' "Courtfees is allowed and the registry•shall grant a certificate authbrising,the, . , appellantsinboththe appeals,torecejveback'thefull.'Court/feespaid - - ' - ; memoraiiduniofappealsfromtiieCollectorofStamps. ; : \ - v '6V' Learned.counselfor the appellantss.eek direGtiohwith respect.!^ ^ ' decretal amount. In case the.decretal,amo,urithas-not been deposited the •; / • appellantwouldnot be requiredto deposit/paytiie same!. However,in case,, ': ^ ' , ,, , the decretal amount has, already been deposited withvor attached by tlife • ' ; ; -• Reference'Courtbut hot yet released,the ReferenceCourt'shallretain thd./ - ' : amountin fixed deposittill'fresh adjudication;Jn case the decretalahioUht . •' ' /has been releasedto, the private,respondent(s,),tiie;,privaterespondent(tS) : 1 , lO; is/arepermittedto retainthe decretalamounttill fresh orderis passedby the Reference Court subject to the private responderit(s) furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court with an undertakingsto deposit the amount along with such interest-as the Reference"Coui^t 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 ,, I _ ' ^ . s ^ ' ' satisfaction of the Reference Court be filed by the private respondent(s) before the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from today. The learned Reference Court shall not permit the private respondent(s) to lead additional evidence till the undertaking and 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 undertaking, and the security within eight weeks, the appellant would be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the decretal amount from the private respohdent(s) in accordance with law.

7.. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on May, 2018. • Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have noted down the next date bf hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would 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. • t

J.R. MlDHA, J. MARCH 22,2018 ak

r _ . A- •••••, • •• '5- * IN THE HIGH COURT QF DEi.Hr AT NEW +v LA.APP: 46d/2015- • ^ ^''.V'- ^MAHENDERKUlVLAR ' • \ ' , Appellant , ^Through; • Mr/J,aiSahaiEncilaw,Ady. - versus^.' ' •-V" • ' \ . UNION OF INDIA & ANR' . , ' .. ..... Respondents • Through:. Mr.SanjayKumarPath^^^^ , ' . / - i, , Kaoniudi Kiran,,Mr-SunilVKuniar ^ , , . ., \ \ - Jha, Mr: KushalRajTaW/ ^ ' . ' -\ •' Akhtar,Advs.ibrRl.i / ^ ' . ' • ' ' : ^ Mr. .Rajan Tyagi aiid Mr.'Naresh ; -• •" Kuniar,Advs. f6r^R2j^E)MC. ; " ' + ,^^LA.APR323/2016 V " : UNION OF INDIA ...;. Appellant, % Through: Mr. SahjayKuniar Pa ; - ^ KaomtidiKiran, Mr. Sum! Kumar ' . ' ., ; . Jha, Kushal Raj Tater, •• /Uditar,Advs: ...versus' ,, . " MAHENDERKUMAR & ANR \ , , .....Respondents : ' ' . Ti^ough: ,Mr. Jai Sahai,Endlaw,Adv. .. CORAM:- , ' 7,•\• v HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J R. MIDHA