Farzand Ali v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER

22.03.2018 Appellant Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Adv. Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for R1. Appellant Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Kushal Raj Tater, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. Respondents Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Adv. Mr. G.D. Mishra, Standing Counsel for EDMC. LA.APP. 461/2015 and L.A. APP. 318/2016

¶1The appellant and respondent no.l have challenged the judgment dated 27^^ August 2015 whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation by applying the circle rates.

¶2Learned counsel for Union of India submits that the Reference Court has applied the circle rates as the market value of the land in question. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Union ofIndia V. SavitriDevi, 2017 SCC OnLine 1400decidedon 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 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 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 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.

¶5This court in Lai Chand vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. [(2009) 15 SCC 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 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 dijferent areas 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 basisfor determiningthe market value in land acquisitioncases, as a relevantpiece of evidence.It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guidelinemarketvalue. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevantpiece of evidenceonlyiftheyare assessedbystatutorilyappointed Expert Committees, in accordancewith the prescribed assessmentprocedure (eitherstreetwise, or road-wise,or area-wise, or village-wise) and finalised after inviting objectionsandpublishedin the Gazette.Bethatas 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 principleinJawajeeNaganathamwillapplyand theywill not beofanyassistancefor determiningthemarketvalue. 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. 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 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 criteria for fixing market value or for determinationof compensation. The 1894 Act contains a comprehensivemechanismfor fixing market value and determination of the compensationpayable. Any person, whofeels aggrievedby the awardoftheLandAcquisition Collector or the determination made by the Reference 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 Government to adopt the circle rates as an important factor for fixing market value 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 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 the relevant factors and the evidence which may in an appropriate case includecircle rates. "

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

¶6The circle rates for purposeofstampdutycouldnot havebeen made the basis for determinins 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 Court for deciding afresh." (Emphasis Supplied)

¶3Learned counselsfor 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 additional evidence of the parties with respect to the market value of the land and for passing a fresh order.

¶4The 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 th^ 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.

¶5Learned 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 appellantsin boththe appealsto receivebackthe full Courtfees paid on the memorandum of appeals from the Collector of Stamps.

¶6Learned 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 decretal amount has already been deposited with or attached by 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/arepermittedto retainthe decretalamounttill fresh orderispassedby the ReferenceCourt subjectto the private respondent(s)furnishing sufficient securityto the satisfactionofthe ReferenceCourt with an undertakingto deposit the amount along with such interest as the ReferenceCourt may direct in the event of the appellantsucceedingbeforethe ReferenceCourt. In such cases, an undertaking along with the sufficient security to the satisfactionof the Reference Court be filed by the private respondent(s) beforethe ReferenceCourtwithina periodof eightweeks from today. The learned ReferenceCourt shall not permit the private respondent(s)to lead additional evidence till the undertakingand the security in terms of this order is furnishedby the privaterespondent(s)before the ReferenceCourt. In the eventof the failureof the privaterespondent(s)to file an undertaking and the security within eight weeks, the appellantwould be at liberty to initiateexecutionproceedingsfor recoveryofthe decretalamountfrom the privaterespondent(s)inaccordancewith law.

¶7The partiesshall appearbeforethe 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 appearancebeforethe ReferenceCourt.

¶8Copy ofthis orderbe givendastito counselfor the partiesunderthe signature of the Court Master.

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

r $-34 & 44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 461/2015 FARZAND ALI Through; versus + % UNION OF INDIA & ANR Through: LA.APP. 318/2016 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus FARZAND ALI & ANR Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA