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

In this batch of 87 matters, 19 are special leave petitions preferred by the Food Corporation of India through its District Manager, Faridkot, Punjab, and the remaining by some claimant-land-owners against the Food Corporation of India. The dispute is about the correct assessment of the market value of the land acquired by the State of Punjab for the Food Corporation of India. Notice was issued to the contesting parties indicating to them that the matter may finally be disposed of at the notice stage itself.Land measuring 400 Kanals 12 Marlas (a little over 50 acres) situated in the revenue estate of village Danewala, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot, Punjab, was acquired for construction of food grain godowns. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued simultaneously on the same day, that is, December 20, 1977. The District Collector of Faridkot on January 31, 1984 awarded compensation for the acquired land differentiating between Nehri lands and Barani lands at the rate of Rs. 30, 000 per acre and below. Being not satisfied, the claimant-land-owners moved the Collector, Faridkot, for references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. Two references were filed by the Food Corporation of India as well for reduction. The additional District Judge on receipt of the references went into the matter and held the references went into the matter and held the references by the Food Corporation of India barred under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act. In the other references, the Food Corporation of India as well as State of Punjab were arrayed by the claimant-land-owners themselves as respondentsThe Additional District Judge after examining the matter awarded a uniform rate of Rs. 1, 20.000 per acre for the land acquired, vide his award dated on June 13, 1986. Since the matter was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge when the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, came into force, solatium at the rate of 30 per cent was ordered to be paid on the market value of the land. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or from the date of taking possession whichever is earlier, and from the date of taking possession till one year thereafter at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and in the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of expiry of one year from the date of taking of possession tillThe appeals of the Food Corporation of India and the State of Punjab on the one hand and appeals of the claimant-land-owners on the other, respectively asking for reduction and enhancement of compensation, were dismissed by a common judgment by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on August 16, 1988. The assessment at the rate of Rs. 1, 20, 000 per acre was affirmed but on a different reasoning than the one adopted by the Additional District Judge. Likewise, Letters Patent Appeals by the respective parties to Division Bench of the High Court were dismissed maintaining the measure of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1, 20, 000 per acre, still on a different reasoning than the one adopted by the learned Single Judge or the Additional District Judge. Since the reasoning has differed from court to court, we became inclined to examine the issue over again and come to a decision regarding the rate of compensation which would be just and equitable in the circumstances, as well as meeting the requirements of law

Reasoning:
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