JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned 1st Additional District Judge Moradabad dated 29.1.1990 in L.A.R. No. 203 of 1987.
2. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs and discloses the wide spread malaise which has infected a section of the subordinate judiciary of the State, and which is bringing the entire judiciary of Uttar Pradesh to disrepute. The citizens of this country still respect the judiciary but the judiciary on its part has to prove itself worthy and deserving of this respect which the public bestows on it.
3. In this case and in the connected cases listed before us today, we come across facts which deeply disturb us and call for strong action so that the confidence of the public in the judiciary may be restored and maintained.
4. In this case the Special Land Acquisition Officer under the Land Acquisition Act had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 17.05 per square meter, but the Court below enhanced it to Rs. 350 per square meter.
4. The total land acquired was 21.85 acres. Certain exemplars were filed before the Court below, but they were not relied on, and all that has been relied on by The Court below is the circle rate vide Paper No. 25C and 26C. It is well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court that the circle rate cannot be relied on vide decision of the division Bench of this Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Anand Kumar, First Appeal No. 515 of 1992 decided on 26.02.2004. The circle rate is meant only for levying stamp duty, and it cannot be treated as the market value for a vast area of land acquired.
5. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar, JT 2004 (1) S.C. 344, the Supreme Court held that market value cannot be determined on the basis of the basic valuation register maintained by the Registering Authority for calculation of stamp duty. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Java Jee Nagnathan v. Revenue Development Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Katra Properties (P) Ltd. (1996) 3 SCC 124, K.S. Shivadevamma v. Asst. Commissioner, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 62, etc.
6. What is also shocking in this case is that even the circle rate which has been applied in this case is post notification i.e. subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 18.7.1984, whereas the rate lists relied upon by the Court below are of 1984-85 and 1986-88.
7. In Moradabad Development Authority v. Shami Ahmad, First Appeal No. 247 of 1997 decided on 5.3.2004 a division bench of this Court referred to the scandalous practice which is prevailing in the District Courts particularly in Western U.P., and this is obviously in collusion between certain lawyers and certain judicial officers, who are granting exorbitant compensation in land acquisition references for extraneous considerations and this scandalous practice is giving a bad name to the entire judiciary of the State.
8. In that decision we directed the Registrar General of the Court to place the judgment in First Appeal No. 247 of 1997 (supra) as well as the judgment in First Appeal No. 981 of 2002, Agra Development Authority v. State of U.P. decided of 5.3.2004 before the Administrative Committee of this Court so that appropriate action may be taken to put a halt to this scandalous practice which is bringing disgrace to the entire judiciary. Accordingly the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of this Court on 12.3.2004 and the Administrative Committee has appointed a Committee consisting of Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan to probe into these allegations and recommend appropriate action against the concerned judicial officers and others concerned.
9. For the reasons given above this appeal and all the connected appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set a side and the order passed by S.L.A.O. is restored.
10. Let a copy of this judgment also be placed before the Committee of Hon'ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan J.J. for their consideration.