Union of India v. Ved Prakash Gupta and Ors

ORDER

21.12.2017 C.M. AppI. 46896/2017 in L.A. AFP. 19/2017 C.M. AppI. 47000/2017 in L.A. AFP. 192/2017

¶1Issue notice. Learned counsel for respondent accepts notice.

¶2The applicationsfor early hearing are allowed and the appeals are taken up for hearing today itself. LA.APP. 19/2017 and L.A. APP. 192/2017

¶3The appellant and respondent no.l have challenged the judgment dated 23'"'' September,2016 wherebythe ReferenceCourthas enhancedthe compensation by applying the circle rates.

¶4Learned 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 recentjudgmentof Union ofIndia V. SavitriDevi, 2017 SCC OnLine 1400decidedon 21'^ September,2017 set aside the awardsbased on circlerates holdingthat the circle rates couldnot have been made basis for determinationof 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 thejudgmentof 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 circlerates have been providedfor the purposeof 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 judgmentof the High 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 Chandvs. Union ofIndia & Anr. [(2009) 15 SCC 769], has laid down thus: "4LIt should however be noted that as contrastedfrom theassessmentofmarketvaluecontainedin non-statutory Basic ValuationRegisters, theposition 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, a 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 ofexperts. The estimation ofmarket 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 relevantpiece of evidenceonlyiftheyare 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.Bethat as it may.

¶46In the instant case, there is nothing to show the circle rates have been determinedby any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, principle inJawajee Naganathamwillapplyand 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 valuesrelating 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 LN. 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 undertakenby the High Courtfor forcing the administrationtoprescribe circle rates as the [D criteria for fixing market value or for determination of compensation. The 1894 Act contains a comprehensive mechanism for 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 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.

¶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 AcquisitionCollector shall befree to make determination by taking into consideration relevant factors and the evidence which may in an appropriate case include circle rates. "

¶5It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for theparties that it would be appropriate to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence. The High Court may permit the parties to adduce the evidencebefore the ReferenceCourt and callfor the finding ofthe Reference Court.

¶6The circle rates for purpose ofstamp duty could not have been made the basis for determinins 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 Courtfor deciding afresh. " (Emphasis SuppUed)

¶5Learnedcounselsfor the partiessubmitthat the impugnedjudgment of the Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Reference Court for recording of additional evidence of the parties with V\ respect to the market value of the land and for passing a fresh order.

¶6The impugned judgment of the Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for recording additional evidence in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and the Reference Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.

¶7Learned counsels for the appellantsin both the appeals seek refund of 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 refiind of the Courtfees. Consideringthat the ReferenceCourthad disposedof the referenceon a preliminarypoint by taking the circle rates and the remand is being made of this preliminarypoint of law, the prayer for refund of the Courtfees is allowedand the registryshallgrant a certificateauthorisingthe appellantsin both the appealsto receiveback the full Court fees paid on the memorandumof appeals from the Collectorof Stamps.

¶8Learned counsel for the appellants seek direction with respect to 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 alreadybeendepositedwith the ReferenceCourtbut notyet released,the ReferenceCourtshallretainthe amountin fixed deposit till fresh adjudication. In case the decretal amount has been released to the private respondent(s),the private respondent(s)is/are permittedto retainthe decretalamounttill fresh order is passedby the ReferenceCourt subjectto the privaterespondent(s)furnishing sufficientsecurityto the satisfactionof the ReferenceCourt with an undertakingto depositthe amount along with such interestas the ReferenceCourtmay directin the eventof the appellant succeedingbeforethe ReferenceCourt. In such cases,an undertakingalong with the sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court be filed by the privaterespondent(s)before the ReferenceCourt within a period of eight weeks from today. The learnedReferenceCourt shall not permit the privaterespondent(s)to lead additionalevidencetill 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 accordancewith law.

¶9The partiesshall appear before the ReferenceCourt on 30*'' January, 2018. Learnedcounselsfor thepartiessubmitthat theyhave noteddownthe next date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be required for appearance before the Reference Court.

¶10Copy of this orderbe given dasti to counselfor the partiesunderthe signature of the Court Master. 'XRTMIDHA, j. DECEMBER 21,2017 rsk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 19/2017 VED PRAKASHGUPTA& ORS Appellants Through: Ms. Prachi Satija proxy for Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Advocate + % versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APP. 192/2017 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates for respondent No.1 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SS (Legal), DMRC Appellant Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates VEDPRAKASHGUPTA& ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SS (Legal), DMRC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA