SC Remands Case for Fresh Consideration, Says Circle Rates Shouldn't Determine Market Value; Judgment Annulled.

The SC allowed the appeals, remanding the case to the HC for fresh consideration, emphasizing that circle rates should not determine market value. The Reference Court's judgments were annulled, requiring additional evidence and fresh orders. The private respondents retained the decretal amount, providing security and an undertaking to repay with interest if necessary. The parties were directed to appear before the Reference Court, and pending applications were disposed of.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to enhanced compensation judgment, Remand for additional evidence, Refund of decretal amount, Security for decretal amount retention.

1. Challenge to Enhanced Compensation Judgment:
The appellants contested the judgments of the Reference Court that increased compensation. The High Court had initially dismissed the appeals, leading the appellants to file Special Leave Petitions. The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 21st September 2017, allowed the appeals and sent the matter back to the High Court for the parties to present evidence before the Reference Court and seek a finding from it. The Supreme Court emphasized that circle rates for stamp duty should not determine market value. Consequently, the High Court was directed to decide the case afresh.

2. Remand for Additional Evidence:
Both parties requested setting aside the impugned judgments of the Reference Court and sending the matters back for recording additional evidence and issuing fresh orders. The appeals were allowed, the judgments of the Reference Court were annulled, and the matters were remanded for recording additional evidence and issuing fresh orders.

3. Refund of Decretal Amount:
The appellant sought a refund of the decretal amount deposited by respondent No. 2 before the Reference Court, which had been released to the private respondents. The appellant requested the refund of this amount.

4. Security for Decretal Amount Retention:
The private respondents were allowed to keep the decretal amount until fresh orders were issued by the Reference Court. They were directed to provide sufficient security to the Reference Court, along with an undertaking to deposit the amount with interest if the appellant succeeded in the future. Failure to comply within six weeks would enable the appellant to initiate execution proceedings for recovery. The parties were scheduled to appear before the Reference Court on a specified date. Pending applications were disposed of, and a copy of the order was to be provided to the parties' counsel.

This comprehensive summary outlines the legal judgment's key issues, the court's decisions, and the actions required by the parties involved.

---