Case: Food Corporation Of India Through Its Districtmanager, Fari Vs. Makhan Singh And Anr. Etc.Etc

Road. It is evidently close to the DAV College. Besides, it surrounds the office of the Market Committee. As observed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court the grain market land covered by award Ex. A-24 had a better access and better potential than the land under acquisition. Obviously the two lands could not be treated at par as the market value of the instant land cannot be the same. So far there can be no dispute. Amongst the three sale instances figuring in the discussion, sale Ex. A-11 is the closest in point of time having taken place on December 18, 1978 (about a year after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act) and distancewise closest from the land acquired for grain market, Malout. This discloses the rate of Rs. 96, 800 per acre, even though the area involved is less than half-a-Kanal. Only a plot, sizeable though, intervenes between this plot and the land under acquisition. This sale instance engaged the attention of Letters Patent Bench of the High Court and not by any of the two courts below. The next in point of time is sale instance Ex. A-23 showing the rate of Rs. 1, 20, 000 per acre but the land sold was only one Kanal. It took place on June 6, 1979 about 1-1/2 years later than the date of Section 4 notification. This sale instance engaged the attention of the Additional District Judge and the Letters Patent Bench but was dropped from consideration by the learned Single Judge on the concession of the claimant-land-owners. Lastly in point of time is sale instance Ex. A-16 of June 30, 1981 involving one Kanal of land, the rate being Rs. 2, 40, 000 per acre. In point of situation, plot covered under Ex. A-16 is almost opposite to plot covered by sale Ex. A-23 but slightly towards Malout town. Ex. A-16 took place two years after sale Ex. A-23 and as such was about 3-1/2 years after the date of notification. Sale Ex. A-16 appealed to the Additional District Judge only as a supporting material to grant compensation at the rate of Rs. 1, 20, 000 per acre on the basis of sale Ex. A-23. Sale Ex. A-16 neither appealed to the learned Single Judge nor to the Letters Patent Bench. Sale Ex. A-16 having been discarded by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court and the Additional District Judge too having used it only in a limited way, as disclosed in his reasoning, we feel that sale Ex. A-16 should be totally ruled out from consideration because it was too distant in point of time having taken place 3-1/2 years after the date of notification. Having discarded the same the supporting foundation to maintain sale price at the rate of Rs. 1, 20, 000 per acre either on the basis of sale instance Ex. A-23 or on the basis of award Ex. A-24 become shaky and open to question 17. Now we have seen sales Ex. A-11 as well as Ex. A-23 are of very small areas and have taken place a year and a-year-and-half respectively from the date of Section 4 notification. Evidently they are at an advantageous position being on the G.T. Road as compared to the land under acquisition which has no access to the G.T. Road and is of the large area. These sales have as such no positive role to play. If at all, some role is due to sale Ex. A-11, which is closest in point of time, and distancewise more close to Malout town, and on account of its situation. This tells us that for a small plot at an advantageous position on the G.T. Road the rate was Rs. 96, 000 per acre a year after the date of the notification under Section 4. The land under acquisition cannot fetch on any reasoning the same price as fixed in sale Ex. A-11, because comparably the area acquired is large, almost 800 times than the land sold, vide Ex. A-11. So the land acquired has to fetch a price lesser than the price of Rs. 96, 800 per acre. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that in the grounds of appeal before the High Court, the Food Corporation of India disclosed its willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 80, 000 per acre for the land acquired. In the same strand the learned counsel appearing for the F.C.I. had projected before the learned Single Judge that there should be further cut to reduce the compensation from Rs. 1, 20, 000 per acre to about Rs. 93, 000 per acre. These statements by themselves are no concessions and are at best indications of vacillation to find the correct market value. On such statements public purses cannot be allowed to open their mounts. Having regard to these conflicting claims we get to the view that important points affecting valuation had been overlooked or misapplied in arriving at and sticking to the rate of compensation at Rs. 1, 20, 000, which would require a correction from us. We feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation must in comparison get lower than the price at which sale Ex. A-11 took place, but at a figure which does not overlook the rate as given in award Ex. A-24. Now we lift our thumb and put it to reduce the compensation to Rs. 80, 000 per acre slicing down 1/6th (roundedly) from the rate reflective from sale instance Ex. A-11 and 1/3rd from the rate of Rs. 1, 20, 000, as deduced from award Ex. A-24, because of the poor locale, disadvantageous position and lack of contiguity to the expansion of Malout town due to the obstructing railway line. In our opinion, compensation at the rate of Rs. 80, 000 per acre is just and fair in the circumstances, and we hold so

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]are not inclined to agree with Mr. Sachar for three reasons. In the first place, it is evident that in the references sought the claimant-land-owners themselves had impleaded the F.C.I. and the State of Punjab as contesting parties. Before the Additional District Judge, the F.C.I. was keen contestant. Having suffered the award from the Additional District Judge after a grim battle it had the right to file an appeal under Section 54 to the High Court. The F.C.I. may not have had the right to ask a reference under Section 18 but this only meant that it could not seek reduction of the compensation as awarded by the Collector because the award was an offer by the State through the Collector. Section 25 too is also a pointer to that effect that the amount of award by the Collector is kept sacrosanct and compensation can in no event be less than one awarded by the Collector. Conversely, subject to the provisions of Section 25, there is no bar for enhancement of compensation from the sum awarded by the Collector. And when there is no such bar the appeals of the F.C.I. in the very nature of things attack the amount awarded by the court over and above the amount awarded by the Collector. In the second place, such an objection was not raised at any stage in the proceedings before the courts below. No effort was made by the claimant-land-owners to get struck off the F.C.I. as party in the proceedings before the Additional District Judge. No objection was made either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the High Court with regard to the maintainability of the appeals preferred at those two stages by the F.C.I. The objection now at such a belated stage cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court, whatever be its merit. In the third place, this Court in its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, has wide powers to permit any person to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The objection raised in either event does not appeal to us and we accordingly rejectThis 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 beThe land under acquisition cannot fetch on any reasoning the same price as fixed in sale Ex. A-11, because comparably the area acquired is large, almost 800 times than the land sold, vide Ex. A-11. So the land acquired has to fetch a price lesser than the price of Rs. 96, 800 per acre. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that in the grounds of appeal before the High Court, the Food Corporation of India disclosed its willingness to pay a sum of Rs. 80, 000 per acre for the land acquired. In the same strand the learned counsel appearing for the F.C.I. had projected before the learned Single Judge that there should be further cut to reduce the compensation from Rs. 1, 20, 000 per acre to about Rs. 93, 000 per acre. These statements by themselves are no concessions and are at best indications of vacillation to find the correct market value. On such statements public purses cannot be allowed to open their mounts. Having regard to these conflicting claims we get to the view that important points affecting valuation had been overlooked or misapplied in arriving at and sticking to the rate of compensation at Rs. 1, 20, 000, which would require a correction from us. We feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation must in comparison get lower than the price at which sale Ex. A-11 took place, but at a figure which does not overlook the rate as given in award Ex. A-24. Now we lift our thumb and put it to reduce the compensation to Rs. 80, 000 per acre slicing down 1/6th (roundedly) from the rate reflective from sale instance Ex. A-11 and 1/3rd from the rate of Rs. 1, 20, 000, as deduced from award Ex. A-24, because of the poor locale, disadvantageous position and lack of contiguity to the expansion of Malout town due to the obstructing railway line. In our opinion, compensation at the rate of Rs. 80, 000 per acre is just and fair in the circumstances, and we hold