Case: Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer

adjoining property towhom it may have somevery special advantage". 12. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are the best guide for determination of the market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a land owner. Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it. 13. The next question is as to the scope of interference by this Court in an award granting compensation. The scope of interference by this Court was delineated by the decision in Kamta Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar ((1976) 3 SCC 772 ) wherein this Court held that there was an element of guesswork inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land. If the judgment of the High Court revealed that it had taken into consideration the relevant factors prescribed by the Act, in appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, assessment of market value thus made should not be disturbed by this Court. 14. The following observations of this Court in Food Corporation of India through its District Manager, Faridkot, Punjab & Ors. Vs. Makhan Singh and Anr. ((1992) 3 SCC 67 ) are quite apposite: "This Court as the last Court of appeal, will ordinarily not interfere in an award granting compensation unless there is something to show not merely that on the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion, but that the judgment cannot be supported by reason of a wrong application of principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. Besides, generally speaking, the appellate court interferes not when the judgment under appeal is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. See in this connection, The Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730. Added thereto are other rules of prudence that the courts do not treat at par land situated on the frontage having special advantage and the land situated in the interior undeveloped area, or to compare smaller plots fetching better price with large tracts of land. See in this connection Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 : AIR 1990 SC 2192 ." 15. Therefore, the scope of interference in such matters is very limited and it is only in cases where it is found that the authorities below have either applied wrong principles or have omitted to take into consideration some important point affecting valuation, that this Court can interfere.16. Bearing these principles in mind, we may now advert to the facts of the present case.17. In the instant case before the Reference Court, the appellant had examined 4 witnesses including himself as PW-1. In support of his claim, he brought on record Ex. A.1 to A.8. However, presently we are required to consider Ex. A.6, the judgment of Subordinate Judge, Medak in O.P. No.112 of 1987 dated 25th April, 1991, fixing the rate of compensation for the land, stated to be contiguous to the land of the appellant, at Rs.18/- per square yard. Ex. A.7 is the certified copy of the decree in the said original petition. As is clear from its afore- extracted order, the High Court relied on its decision in A.S. No.2336 of 1998 on the ground that the land in question in the said suit was acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 4th January, 1987; the area of the land was 3 acres 9 guntas; the land was situated in the same village and was acquired for the same very public purpose of construction of Singnoor project as in the present case. The High Court noted that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case of the appellant having been published within 6 months of the date of Notification in the afore-mentioned suit i.e. 15th July, 1987, it was not possible and permissible to take a different view other than the one taken in the said suit. While discarding Exs. A.6 and A.7, the Court has noted that the lands, subject matter of that acquisition, were not situated in the same village. 18. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether in the light of the said finding of the High Court, it could be said that the High Court has applied a wrong principle of law or has taken into consideration irrelevant material, warranting interference by this Court. Having gone through the evidence on record, we find it difficult to accept the stand of the appellant that the High Court should have relied on Ex. A.6 instead of its earlier decision in A.S. No.2336 of 1998. It may be true that in the absence of the instance relied upon by the High Court, Ex. A.6 could be taken into consideration as one of the comparable sale instances but at the same time reliance on its earlier judgment in respect of a land situated in the same village, acquired only six months ago, could not be said to be an irrelevant factor affecting the determination of market value/compensation in respect of the land of the appellant. As observed in Pal Singhs case (supra), said judgment is a valid instance from which the market value of the subject land could be deduced. Merely because a different conclusion could be possible on two sets of sale/acquisition instances, in our judgment, is no ground to interfere with the award of the High Court when it has taken into consideration an instance which is more closer to appellants land in respect of the date of acquisition; happened to be in the same village and acquired for the same purpose.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]15. Therefore, the scope of interference in such matters is very limited and it is only in cases where it is found that the authorities below have either applied wrong principles or have omitted to take into consideration some important point affecting valuation, that this Court can interfere.16. Bearing these principles in mind, we may now advert to the facts of the present case.17. In the instant case before the Reference Court, the appellant had examined 4 witnesses including himself asIn support of his claim, he brought on record Ex. A.1 to A.8. However, presently we are required to consider Ex. A.6, the judgment of Subordinate Judge, Medak in O.P. No.112 of 1987 dated 25th April, 1991, fixing the rate of compensation for the land, stated to be contiguous to the land of the appellant, at Rs.18/per square yard. Ex. A.7 is the certified copy of the decree in the said original petition. As is clear from its aforeextracted order, the High Court relied on its decision in A.S. No.2336 of 1998 on the ground that the land in question in the said suit was acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 4th January, 1987; the area of the land was 3 acres 9 guntas; the land was situated in the same village and was acquired for the same very public purpose of construction of Singnoor project as in the present case. The High Court noted that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case of the appellant having been published within 6 months of the date of Notification in thesuit i.e. 15th July, 1987, it was not possible and permissible to take a different view other than the one taken in the said suit. While discarding Exs. A.6 and A.7, the Court has noted that the lands, subject matter of that acquisition, were not situated in the samegone through the evidence on record, we find it difficult to accept the stand of the appellant that the High Court should have relied on Ex. A.6 instead of its earlier decision in A.S. No.2336 of 1998. It may be true that in the absence of the instance relied upon by the High Court, Ex. A.6 could be taken into consideration as one of the comparable sale instances but at the same time reliance on its earlier judgment in respect of a land situated in the same village, acquired only six months ago, could not be said to be an irrelevant factor affecting the determination of market value/compensation in respect of the land of the appellant. As observed in Pal Singhs case (supra), said judgment is a valid instance from which the market value of the subject land could be deduced. Merely because a different conclusion could be possible on two sets of sale/acquisition instances, in our judgment, is no ground to interfere with the award of the High Court when it has taken into consideration an instance which is more closer to appellants land in respect of the date of acquisition; happened to be in the same village and acquired for the same purpose.