Union of India v. Subhash Chander Vij and Anr

ORDER %

21.12.2017 C.M. AdpI. 46922/2017 in L.A. AFP. 191/2017

¶1Issuenotice. Learnedcounselfor respondentacceptsnotice.

¶2The applicationsfor early hearing are allowed and the appeals are takenup for hearingtodayitself LA.APP. 16/2017 and L.A. APP. 191/2017

¶3The appellant and respondentno.l have challenged the judgment dated 08 September,2016 wherebythe ReferenceCourt has enhancedthe compensationby applyingthe 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 1400 decidedon 21^^ September,2017 set asidethe awardsbased on circlerates holdingthat the circlerates 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 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, couldnot have been made the basis for determination of the compensation. In the suidelines,the circlerateshave 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 iud2mentofthe Hi2h Courtcannotbesustained.In addition, there is nothing to indicate that any statutory committee has determinedthe said rate on a scientific basis and methodical assessment ofmarket value.

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

¶44One of the recognisedmethodsfor determinationof marketvalue is with referenceto opinionofexperts. The estimationofmarketvalue bysuch statutorilyconstituted 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 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.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, the principleinJawajeeNaganathamwillapplyand theywill notbeofanyassistancefor determiningthe marketvalue. Further, they do notpurport to be the marketvaluefor lands in rural areas on the outskirts of Delhi, nor the marketvaluesrelatingto Rithalavillage. The circlerates relate to urban/city areas in Delhi and are wholly irrelevant."

¶4In Government (NCT ofDelhi) & Ors. v. Aiav Kumar & Ors'. [{2014)13see 734] 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 SolicitorGeneralappearingfor the appellantsand Shri P.S. Narasimha, learnedsenior advocateappearingfor 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 phenomenonwhich is prevalent all over the country, it is not possible to approve the exercise undertakenby the High Courtfor forcing the administrationtoprescribecirclerates as the criteriafor fixing market value orfor determinationof the compensation. The 1894 Act contains a comprehensivemechanismfor fixing market value and determinationofthe compensationpayable.Anyperson, whofeels aggrievedby the awardofthe LandAcquisition Collectoror the determinationmade by the Reference \'0 Court can avail remedy either byfiling 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 acquired land. The power vested in the Collector to determine market value of the acquired land cannot be controlledby a judicial fiat 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 relevantfactors and the evidence which may in an appropriate case include circle rates. "

¶5It was submittedby learnedcounselappearingfor theparties that it would be appropriateto permit the parties to adduce additionalevidence. The High Court may permit the parties to adducethe evidencebeforethe ReferenceCourtandcallfor the finding ofthe ReferenceCourt. 6-The circle rates for purpose ofstamp duty could not have been made the basisfor 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)

¶5Learnedcounselsfor the partiessubmitthat the impugnedjudgment of the ReferenceCourt be set aside and the matterbe remandedbackto the Reference Court for recordingof additionalevidence of the parties with respectto the marketvalueofthe landand for passinga freshorder.

¶6The impugnedjudgmentof the ReferenceCourt is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court for recordingadditional evidencein terms ofthe aforesaidjudgmentofthe Supreme Court and the w Reference Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.

¶7Learned counsels for the appellants in 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 refund of the Court fees. Considering that the Reference Court had disposed of the reference on a preliminary point by taking the circle rates and the remand is being made of this preliminary point of law, the prayer for refund of the Court fees is allowed and the registry shall grant a certificate authorising the appellants in both the appeals to receive back the full Court fees paid on the memorandum of appeals from the Collector of Stamps.

¶8Learned counsel for the appellants seek direction with respect to the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited, the appellant would not be required to deposit/pay the same. However, in case, the decretal amount has already been depositedwith the Reference Court but not yet released, the Reference Court shall retain the amount in fixed deposit till fresh adjudication. In case the decretal amount has been released to the private respondent(s),the private respondent(s)is/are permitted to retain the decretal amount till fresh order is passed by the Reference Court subject to the private respondent(s) furnishing sufficient security to 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 private respondent(s)before the ReferenceCourt within a period of eight weeks from today. The learnedReferenceCourt shall not permitthe 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 anundertakingand the securitywithineightweeks,the appellantwould be at libertyto initiateexecutionproceedingsfor recovery of the decretal amount from the private respondent(s)in accordancewith law.

¶9The partiesshall appear beforethe ReferenceCourt on 30^^ January, 2018. Learnedcounselsfor the partiessubmitthatthey havenoteddown the 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 dastito counselfor the partiesunder the signature of the Court Master. (Ml-^ -HFiRrMlDHATjT DECEMBER 21,2017 rsk

* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LA.APP. 16/2017 SUBHASH CHANDER VIJ Through: versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APP. 191/2017 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus Appellant Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocates Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SS (Legal), DMRC Appellant Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocates SUBHASHCHANDERVIJ AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr. SanjayKumar,SS (Legal), DMRC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA