2017 (11) TMI 2053 - HC - Indian Laws

Enhancement of compensation - seeking refund of the decretal amount by the private respondents - appellant submits that the decretal amount has been deposited by respondent No. 2 before the Reference Court and the same has been released to the private respondents - HELD THAT - The learned Reference Court shall not permit the private respondents to lead additional evidence till the undertaking and the security in terms of this order is furnished by the private respondents before the Reference Court. In the event of the failure of the private respondents to file an undertaking and the security within six months, the appellant would be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the decretal amount from the private respondents in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 14th December, 2017. Learned counsels for the parties submit that they have noted down the next date of hearing and no fresh notice for their appearance would be required for appearance before the Reference Court. Application disposed off.

Summary

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.