Allowed

Chander Prakash Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC22 Mar 2018LA.APP./459/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order addressed appeals against a Reference Court award based on circle rates. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held that non-statutory circle rates cannot determine land compensation. The matter was remanded for fresh evidence on market value, court fees were refunded, and interim security was directed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; matter remanded to High Court for fresh order with additional evidence; court fees refunded; security directed against decretal amount.

Chander Prakash Gupta Vs Union of India & Anr. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

Learned counsel for Union ofIndia submitsthat the ReferenceCourt has applied the circle rates as the, market value of the' land in question.It is submittedthat the SupremeCourt in the recent,judgmentoi Union ofIndia V. SavitriDevi, 2017 SCC OnLine 1400 decidedon 21'^ September,2017 set , aside the awards based on circle rates holdiiigthat 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 ' portionofthejudgmentof SupremeCourt is reproducedhereiinder:-

¶3

"2. After hearing learned counselfor the parties, we deem it-

¶4

appropriate to set aside the impugnedjudgment 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 circlerates have been providedfor the purposeof payment. of stamp duty, but that cannot be made the basis to determinethe actual price of the inarketvalue of the property.It may vary considering 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 determinedthe said rate on a .scientific basis and methodical assessment of market value. . • , ^

¶5

This court in lal Chand vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. [(2009)15 ' see 769], has laid down thus: ,

¶6

"4LIt should however be noted that as contrastedfrom the assessmentof.marketValue, containedin non-statutory Basic ValuationRegisters, the position may be different, where the guideline market values are determined by

¶7

• 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,

¶8

' . provide for scientific and 'methodical assessment of .marketvalue in differentareas by ExpertCommittees.:

¶9

r , • \ 44. One of the recognised methods for 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 only if they are assessed by statutorily 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. . '46. In the instant case, there is nothing to show the circle ., . rates have been determinedby any statutorily appointed been determinedby any statutorily appointed determinedby any statutorily appointedby any statutorily appointed any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, the ' , , principle in Jawajee Naganatham will apply and they will - not be of of any assistance for determining the market value. . Further, they do not purport to he the market value for " ^ ' lands in rural areas on the outskirts of Delhi, Delhi, nor, the ; . market values relating to Rithala village. The circle rates relate to urban/city ' areas in Delhi and are wholly , irrelevant. " , ' • . 4. In Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. A/ay Kumar & Ors. f(2014)IS see 7341 it was held that circle rates could not form the basis. Compensatioh 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 the Land Acquisition Collectors in almost all cases, a phenomenon which is prevalent all over the country, it is not possible to

¶10

. '46. In the instant case, there is nothing to show the circle . rates have been determinedby any statutorily appointed been determinedby any statutorily appointed determinedby any statutorily appointedby any statutorily appointed any statutorily appointed committee by adopting scientific basis. Hence, the principle in Jawajee Naganatham will apply and they will

¶11

- not be of of any assistance for determining the market value. Further, they do not purport to he the market value for ,

¶12

' lands in rural areas on the outskirts of Delhi, Delhi, nor, the

¶13

; . market values relating to Rithala village. The circle rates relate to urban/city ' areas in Delhi and are wholly ,

¶14

, irrelevant. " , ' •

¶15

¶16

In Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. A/ay Kumar & Ors. f(2014)IS see 7341 it was held that circle rates could not form the basis. Compensatioh has to be determined on the basis of objective criteria, this court observed:

¶17

•

¶18

approve the exercise undertaken by the High Courtfor forcing the administrationto prescribe circle rates as the criteria for fixing market value or for determinationof the compensation. The 1894 Act contains' a comprehensive mechanismfor fixing market value and determinationof the compensationpayable. Any person, whofeels aggrievedby the awardof the LandAcquisition Collector or the determinationmade'by the Reference Court can avail remedy either by filing 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 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 byapplication of objectii^ecriteria.

¶19

In the result, the appealsare disposedof by making it clear that the circlerates referred to in notificationdated . , 23.2.20.01 issued by appellant No.l shall not constitute the sole criteriafor fixing market value of the acquired land and the, Land_ AcquisitionCollectorshall be free to

¶20

' make determination by taking into consideration the relevant factors and the evidence which may in an •

¶21

appropriate case include circle rates. "

¶22

5, It was submittedby learned counselappearingfor 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

¶23

finding of the Reference Court.

¶24

The circle rates for purpose of stamp duty could not have been - made the basis for determiningthe marketvalue. Resultantly,we set aside the judgmentpassed by the High. Cpurt. The appeals : are allowedand the matters are remittedto the High Courtfor deciding afresh." ,

¶25

¶26

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶27

Learned counsels for 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 I respecttothe marketvalue of the land and for passinga fresh order.

¶28

The iinpugned judgment of the Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the' Reference Court for recording additional •evidencein terms of the aforesaidjudgmentof the Supreme Court and the Reference Court shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed of in above terms. , : 5. Learnedcounselsfor the-appellantsin both the appealsseek refundof the Court fees under Section 13 ofthe CourtFees Act, 1870 read with,Order XLI Rule 23 of the,Code of Civil Procedure,1,908 whichprovidesfor refund of the Court fees. Consideringthat the ReferenceCourthad disposedof the referenceon a preliminarypoint by takingthe circle rates,and the remand is being made of this preliminarypoint of law, the prayer for refund of the . Court fees is allowedand the registryshall grant a certificateauthorisingthe appellantsin both the appealsto receiveback the full Court fees paid on the ' memorandumof appealsfrom the Collectorof Stamps.

¶29

Learned,counsel for the appellantsseek directionwith respect to the decretal amount. In case the decretal amount has not been deposited,the appellpt would 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

¶30

ID.

¶31

has been released to the private respondent(s),the private respondent(s) is/arepermitted,to retainthe decretalamounttill fresh order is passedby the Reference Court subject to the private resporident(s)furnishing sufficient securityto the satisfactionof the-ReferenceCourt with an undertakingto deposit the amount along with such interest as the Reference Court 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 satisfactionof 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 private respondent(s)to lead additional evidence till the undertaking and the security,in terms of this order is furnished by tlie private respondent(s) before the Reference Court. In the event of the failure of the privaterespondent(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 respondent(s) in accordance with law. 7. The partiesshall.appearbeforethe ReferenceCourt on 1®' May, 2018. Learned counselsfor the parties submit that they have noted down the next date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearancewould be required for appearance before the Reference Court.,

¶32

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

¶33

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶34

MARCH 22,2018 ak

Chander Prakash Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Prakash Gupta 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Rathi & Anr. Vs Rajbir & Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anju Devi and Ors.

Kalpana Vs Prem Wati & Anr.

Farzand Ali Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mohit Electronics Vs the Workman Tahir Hussain

Noor Hassan & Anr. Vs Shakeena Khatoon & Ors. (Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.)