The Supreme Court has strongly recommended that state governments adopt a scientific and systematic approach to determining circle rates—the minimum government-mandated price for property transactions. The Court stressed the need to engage experts to ensure these rates reflect real market conditions and prevent financial discrepancies.
"It would be advisable that the circle rates be fixed by expert committees, which not only have officers from the government but also other specialists who understand market conditions. Methodically and scientifically fixed circle rates can contribute to strengthening the economy and boosting tax collections," the Court observed.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules Eviction Under Senior Citizens Act Not Automatic
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar pointed out that accurately fixed circle rates have a direct impact on citizens. Inflated rates impose an undue burden on buyers, while undervalued rates lead to reduced stamp duty collection, thereby affecting state revenue.
"Circle rates which reflect the market price ensure proper revenue collection for the state by preventing under-valuation of properties," the Court noted.
The Court emphasized that fixing circle rates without considering market realities can lead to unpredictability in transactions and increased litigation. Standardized circle rates should serve as the minimum price, preventing unfair stamp duty charges.
"Circle rates, when determined while accounting for factors that cause variations in the market price of land, can facilitate predictability in transactions and curtail litigation. The standardized circle rates should be fixed at the floor or baseline price, as it would be grossly unfair to ask the public to pay stamp duty on over-valued circle rates," the Court stated.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Overturns Centre's Order Cancelling Ashok Swain's OCI Card
The judgment, authored by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, further highlighted that fair and rational circle rates are essential for good governance and preventing tax evasion. The Court also noted with concern that public authorities have not given sufficient attention to this issue.
"In our opinion, other State Governments would also be well advised in formulating guidelines that can act as a ready reference for determining and revising circle rates regularly, in order for them to reflect market realities," the Court suggested.
Case Background: MP Road Development Corporation vs. Vincent Daniel & Others
The ruling stemmed from a dispute involving land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act, 2013). The Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC), a government undertaking, contested the circle rates set by the state government, arguing that they were inflated and resulted in higher stamp duty costs when acquiring land for road projects.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders Rs 30 Lakh Compensation for Manual Sewer Cleaners Deaths in Metros
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, making it clear that if circle rates were inflated, it was the state's responsibility to revise them. The Court ruled that the Appellant, like any other entity, must adhere to the existing circle rates when paying stamp duty.
"Concerned authorities should fix circle rates scientifically and in accordance with the law. It is their responsibility to ensure that circle rates are neither inflated nor disproportionately low. When citizens are required to pay stamp duty on the notified circle rate, the public authorities, including state development corporations acquiring land from private individuals, must adhere to the same," the Court ruled.
"We do not appreciate the appellant, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation, complaining about the circle rate fixed by the state government. If the circle rate is inflated or does not reflect the true market value, it is incumbent upon the state government to take corrective steps. The State Government or the development corporation under the State Government cannot complain that they have been compelled to acquire land at the circle rate fixed by the State."
A crucial issue in the case was whether the 'theory of deduction'—a method used to reduce compensation for undeveloped land—applies under the 2013 Act. The Appellant argued that compensation should be lowered because the land was undeveloped and would require additional infrastructure investment.
Read Also:- Service Charge Is Voluntary, Cannot Be Made Compulsory on Food Bills: Delhi High Court
However, the High Court upheld the compensation amount determined by the Commissioner, rejecting the deduction theory under the 2013 Act. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the bench reinforced that the Act ensures fair compensation without arbitrary reductions. If the state believes circle rates are inflated, it must revise them rather than seek deductions in court.
This ruling underscores the necessity for scientific, methodical, and transparent fixation of circle rates. By ensuring these rates truly reflect market conditions, state governments can promote fairness in property transactions, enhance revenue collection, and reduce disputes.
State authorities are now expected to develop clear guidelines for the periodic revision of circle rates based on market trends. This proactive approach will create a balanced system benefiting both property buyers and sellers while ensuring adequate revenue for the state.
Read Also:- High Court Criticizes Punjab Government Over Delay in Arresting Policemen Accused of Assaulting Army Officer
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS VINCENT DANIEL AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For Appellant(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Simanta Kumar, Adv. Mr. Maneesh Pathak, Adv. Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Mr. Nishant Verma, Adv. Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, AOR Mr. Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, AOR Mr. Vedant Mishra, Adv. Mr. Manish Jain, Adv. Mr. Virendra Mohan, Adv. Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Satvic Mathur, Adv. Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv.
