Allowed

Naresh Aggarwal v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Feb 2018LA.APP./367/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed appeals holding that circle rates cannot be the sole basis for determining market value or compensation in land acquisition cases, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Savitri Devi. The impugned judgment enhancing compensation based on circle rates was set aside, and the matter remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication with liberty to produce evi

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of Reference Court set aside; matter remitted for fresh order; appeal Court fees refunded.

Naresh Aggarwal Vs Union of India & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified for hearing today itself Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

LA.APP. 194/2017 and L.A. APP.

¶3

The appellantshave challengedthe judgmentdated 26*^ August, 2016 whereby the ReferenceCourt has enhancedthe compensationby applying the circle rates. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Reference Court has appliedthe circlerates as the market value of the land in question.It is submittedthat the SupremeCourt in the recentjudgmentof Union ofIndia V. SavitriDevi, 2017 SCC OnLine 1400 decidedon 21®^ September,2017 set aside the awards based on circle rates holdingthat the circlerates could not 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:-

¶4

"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 uvon. 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 considering the nature and situation of the land. Thus, the judgmentof theHigh Courtcannotbe sustained:In addition, there is nothing to indicate that any statutory committee has determinedthe said rate on a scientific basis and methodical assessment ofmarket value.

¶5

This courtinLai Chandvj. Union ofIndia & Anr. [(2009) 15 SCC 769], has laid down thus:

¶6

"4Lit should however be noted that as contrastedfi-om the assessmentofmarketvaluecontainedin 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

¶7

Gazette. Such state stampActs and the Rules thereunder, provide for scientific and methodical assessment of marketvalue in differentareas by ExpertCommittees. 44. One ofthe recognisedmethodsfor determinationof marketvalue is with referenceto opinionofexperts. The estimationof marketvalue by such statutorilyconstituted 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 guidelinemarket value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevantpiece of evidenceonly ifthey are assessedby statutorilyappointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessmentprocedure(eitherstreetwise,or road-wise,or area-wise, or village-wise) and finalised after inviting objectionsandpublishedin the Gazette.Be thatas it may.

¶8

In the instantcase, there is nothingto show the circle rates have been determinedby any statutorilyappointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, the principlein JawajeeNaganathamwillapplyand they will not be ofany assistancefor determiningthe marketvalue. Further, they do not purportto be the market valuefor lands in rural areas on the outskirts of Delhi, nor the marketvalues relatingto Rithalavillage. The circlerates relate to urban/city areas in Delhi and are wholly irrelevant."

¶9

In Government(NCTof Delhi) & Ors. v. Aiav Kumar rg- Orfi f(2014)13see 7341 it was held that circle rates couldnot form the basis. Compensationhas to be determinedon the basis of objective criteria, this court observed:

¶10

"7. We have heard Shri L.N. Rao, learned Additional SolicitorGeneralappearingfor the appellantsand Shri P.S. Narasimha, learnedsenior advocate appearingfor 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 undertaken by the High Courtfor

¶11

forcing the administration toprescribe circle rates as the criteria for fixing market value or for determinationof the compensation. The 1894 Act contains a comprehensive mechanism for fixing market value and determinationof the compensationpayable. Any person, whofeels aggrievedby theaward of theLandAcquisition Collector or the determination made by the Reference Court can avail remedy either byfiling an application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act or by filing 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 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 byapplication ofobjectivecriteria.

¶12

In the result, the appealsare disposedof by makingit clear that thecirclerates referredto in notificationdated 23.2.2001 issued by appellant No.l shall not constitute the sole criteriafor fixing market value 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 appropriate case include circle rates. "

¶13

It was submittedby learnedcounselappearingfor the parties that it would be appropriate to permit the parties to adduce additionalevidence. The High Court may permit the parties to adduce the evidencebefore the ReferenceCourtand callfor the finding of the Reference Court.

¶14

The circle rates for tjurpose ofstamp duty could not have been made the basis for determiningthe marketvalue. Resultantly,we set aside the judgmentpassed by the High Court. The appeals are allowedand the matters are remittedto the High Courtfor deciding afresh."

¶15

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶16

Learned counsels for the parties submit that the impugnedjudgment of the Reference Court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the

¶17

ReferenceCourt with Hberty to the partiesto lead additionalevidencewith respectto the marketvalueofthe land and for passinga fresh order. 5. Appeals are allowed,the impugnedjudgmentofthe ReferenceCourt is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court with libertyto the parties to lead additionalevidencewith respectto the market value of the land in terms of the aforesaidjudgmentof the Supreme Court and the ReferenceCourtshallpass a fresh orderin accordancewith law. 6. Learnedcounselsfor the appellantsin both the appealsseek refundof the Court fees under Section13 ofthe CourtFees Act, 1870 read with Order XLI Rule 23 ofthe Code ofCivilProcedure,1908 whichprovidesfor refund ofthe Court fees. Consideringthat the ReferenceCourthad disposedofthe referenceon a preliminarypoint by takingthe circlerates and the remand is being made of this preliminarypoint of law, the prayer for refund of the Court fees is allowedand the registryshall grantacertificateauthorisingthe appellantsin both the appealsto receiveback the full Court fees paid on the memorandumofappealsfrom the CollectorofStamps. 7. Learnedcounsel for the appellantsseeks directionwith respectto 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 alreadybeen depositedwith the ReferenceCourtbut not yet released,the ReferenceCourtshallretainthe amountin fixed deposit till fresh adjudication. In case the decretalamounthas been releasedto the ' privaterespondent(s),the privaterespondent(s)is/arepermittedto retainthe decretalamounttill fresh order is passed by the ReferenceCourt subjectto the privaterespondent(s)furnishing sufficientsecurityto the satisfactionof the ReferenceCourt with an undertakingto depositthe amount along with such interestas the ReferenceCourt may directin the event ofthe appellant succeedingbeforethe ReferenceCourt. In such cases, an undertakingalong

¶18

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 learned Reference Court shall not permit the privaterespondent(s)to lead additionalevidencetillthe 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 securitywithineight weeks, the appellantwould be at libertyto initiateexecutionproceedingsfor recovery of the decretal amount from the private respondent(s)in accordancewith law,

¶19

The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 13^^ March, 2018. Learnedcounselsforthe parties submitthat theyhavenoted down the next date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be required for appearance before the Reference Court.

¶20

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the partiesunder the signature of the Court Master.

¶21

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶22

FEBRUARY 07,2018 rsk

Naresh Aggarwal v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Aggarwal v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insruance Co. Ltd. Vs Poonam & Ors.

Baby Muskan Vs Prem Nath & Anr.

Susheel Kumar Pandit Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India Vs Naresh Aggarwal and Anr.

Dharamvir Vs Preeti

M/S National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. Vs M/S Omni Point Corporation & Anr.