This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 30.3.91 given by the learned Special Judicial Officer, Shillong in L.A. Case No. 37 (K)/89. By the impugned award, the learned Special Judicial Officer enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 11/- per square foot as awarded by the learned Collector, to Rs. 25/- per square foot. 2. For construction of a godown in Meghalaya by the Food Corporation of India, the Collector acquired a plot of land measuring more or less 15,000 square meter situated in the village Moroh, Sub-Division Shillong in the District of East Khasi Hills, which is bounded as follows - East:- Garden of Ka Shartimai. West:- Garden of Ka Diyatimon Lyngdoh, North:- Village path and garden of Ka Kwo Lyngdoh. South:- Short round road and garden of Ka Shartimai. Acquisition of the land was made under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act I of 1894) as amended. In the process of acquisition of the plot of land, notification under section 4 of the Act was made by the Govt. of Meghalaya on 19.11.88 and the said notification under section 4 of the Act was also published in local daily papers. No objection having been filed, declaration of the Govt. under section 6 of the Act was notified on 24.4.89 in the Meghalaya Gazette as well as in the local news papers. Thereafter, the Collector issued notice under section 9 of the Act on 10.5.89 fixing 19.5.89 for hearing of objection/claim of interested person or persons. From the order sheet of relevant file of the Collector, it appears that in response to the notice under section 9 of the Act, no formal claim quantifying the compensation was made by any person. However, from the records it appears that the opposite party No. 3 claimed ownership of the acquired land and filed a copy of sale deed dated 1.5.89 by which he purported to have purchased the plot of land out of which, the area of land measuring 15,000 square meter (approximately 3.71 acres) had been acquired. From the order sheet of the acquisition proceedings it also appears that on 19.5.89 one S. M irbaniang appeared and urged for higher rate of compensation on behalf of opposite party No 3, Shri Sunshine Sawkmie. From the order sheet of the acquisition proceedings it also appears that on 19.5.89 one S. M irbaniang appeared and urged for higher rate of compensation on behalf of opposite party No 3, Shri Sunshine Sawkmie. But in what capacity Shri S Marbaniang advocated the case of the opposite party No. 3 for higher compensation, is not clear. It also appears from the order sheet that one S. Marbaniang FAC (Revenue) in the Office of the Collector identified opposite party No. 3 Shri Sunshine Sawkmie on 1.6.89 when he received the payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 24,14,544.00. If S. Marban­iang FAC (Revenue), who identified opposite party No.3 was the same person who represented the respondent No. 3 on 19.5.89, it is beyond comprehension as to how an Officer in the establishment of the Collector could represent and plead for enhancement of compensation on behalf of private party, who claimed to be the owner of the acquired land. It appears that only on basis of the copy of the certified copy of sale deed filed by the opposite party/respondent No. 3, the Collector was satisfied that respondent No. 3 was the owner of the acquired land. From the said copy of the certified copy of the sale deed it appears that respondent No.3 purported to have purchased the acquired land on 1.5.89 i.e after the notification under section 4 of the Act and declaration under section 6 of the Act had already been published in connection with acquisition of the plot of land. The consideration money paid by the respondent No. 3 for purchase of the plot of land as per the photo copy of sale deed dated 1.5. 89 was Rs. 15,68, 160/-. The boundary of the plot of land purported to have been purchased as per the photo copy of the sale deed is as follows: - East- Garden of Ka Shartimai West- Garden of Ka Diaytimon Lyngdoh North- Village path and garden of Ka Kwo Lyngdoh South- Short round road and garden of Ka Shartimai. The photo copy of the sale deed does not indicate the area of the land purported to have been purchased. However, from the receipt dated 21.1.86, given by the owner against payment of initial advance of Rs. The photo copy of the sale deed does not indicate the area of the land purported to have been purchased. However, from the receipt dated 21.1.86, given by the owner against payment of initial advance of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs), it appears that the land measuring 4.93 acres having the same boundary of the land of the sab deed, was agreed to be sold. As such from the two documents namely - the photo copy of the sale deed 1.5.89 and the initial receipt of the advance money of four lakhs, it is clear that by sale deed dated 1.5. 89, respondent No. 3 purported to have purchased the area of land measuring 4.93 acres for a consideration of Rs. 15,68,168/-. The acqu­ired plot of land measuring 15000 square meter (approximately 3.71 acres) is the part of the parcel of the area of land measuring 4.93 acres appears to have been purchased by respondent No. 3 by the sale deed dated 1.5.89, by, simple calculation, it is apparent that price of the land paid by respondent No. 3 Sunshine Sawkmie was at the rate around Rs. 7.30 per square foot. The land was purchased after 6 months of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act and naturally the market value of the acquired land on or about the date of issue of notification under section 4 of the Act was around Rs. 7.30 per square foot The owner has also been awarded solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the acquired land in view of the compulsory nature of the acquisition of the land. It appears that the Collector determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 11/- per square foot which is apparently much higher than the market value of the acquired land which was available from the sale deed dated 1.5.89 itself. The petitioner in whose behalf the land was acquired, deposited the amount of compensation as determined by the Collector and the amount was disbursed to respondent No. 3 which he received under protest. Respondent No. 3 thereafter made an application under section 18 of the Act for making reference for determination of the just and adequate compensation of the acquired property by the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong. Respondent No. 3 thereafter made an application under section 18 of the Act for making reference for determination of the just and adequate compensation of the acquired property by the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong. The Collector C accordingly made a reference and L.A. Case No. 37 (K)89 was registered in the Court of the learned Special Judicial Officer, Shillong. 3. As already observed, after the notice under section 9 of the Act was published, no formal, application quantifying the compensation was filed before the Collector by any person. In the absence of any claim made in response to the notice under section 9 of the Act, a reference is incompetent. A person must file a formal application in response to the notice under section 9 of the Act laying his claim for compensation quantifying the amount under different heads. After reference was made the learned Special Judicial Officer passed the impugned award enhancing the market value from Rs. 11/-to Rs. 25/- per square foot. It appears from the impugned award that the learned Special Judicial Officer has not at all taken into consideration the records of acquisition maintained by the Collector and has not perused and applied his mind to the contents of the copy of the sale deed dated 1.5.89, submitted by the opposite party/respondent No.3 in support of his claim as owner of the acquired land. Indeed, the sale deed dated 1.5.89 by which the opposite party/respondent No. 3 Sunshine Sawkmie purchased the land reflected the correct and proper market value of the acquired and in or about the time of issue of notice under section 4 of the Act and that would have formed the basis for determination of market value of the acquired land. No document could be the better evidence of the market value of acquired land than the sale deed dated 1.5.89, but the learned Judicial Officer has totally ignored that most vital document and on the basis of some documents which are not much relevant, on mere conjecture and surmises, has determined the market value of the land at the rate which is more than three times higher the rate at which respondent No.3 purchased the land within 6 months after notification under section 4 of the Act was published. The Collector also ignored that aspect and determined the market value at Rs. The Collector also ignored that aspect and determined the market value at Rs. 11/- per square foot which in my opinion is much above the market value of the land reflected by the sale deed dated 1.5.89 by which the acquired land appears to have been purchased by respondent No.3 Shri Sunshine Sawkmie. 4. I have heard Mr. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. MZ Ahmed learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has raised a preliminary objection that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is misconceived and not main­tainable, inasmuch as (i) against the award passed by the learned Special Judicial Officer an appeal lies under section 54 of the Act, and (ii) appeal was to be filed by the Collector and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant petition. It is well settled that the power of super­intendence under Article 227 can be exercised by the High Court over all Courts and Tribunals within the territorial jurisdiction to keep the subordinate Courts or Tribunals within bound of their authorities. In cases where an award, order or judgment passed by a subordinate Court or Tribunal has resulted menifest injustice and where the Tribunal or subordinate Courts commit manifest errors of law apparent on the face of the records in making a decision, power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution may be invoked. 5. In my opinion, in the instant case the learned Special Judicial Officer has committed errors of law apparent on the face of the records in not taking into consideration that the materials on records clearly shows that no foundation was laid for making reference under section 18 of the Act, inasmuch as, no formal claim quantifying the amount of compensation was made by the owner in response to the notice under section 9, and that as "par the sale deed dated 1.5.89 by which the respondent 3 claimed to have became owner of the acquired property, market value of the acquired land, reflected much below the value determined by the Collector. Such failure has resulted in manifest injustice. In the instant case arbitrary way of awarding compensa­tion writ large on the face of the records. Such failure has resulted in manifest injustice. In the instant case arbitrary way of awarding compensa­tion writ large on the face of the records. As already observed, when the document by which the acquired land was purchased by the claimant within six months after issue of notification under section 4 of the Act as a price of around Rs. 7.30 per square foot the market value of the land could not have exceeded that amount, inasmuch as, the sale deed pertaining to acquired land itself on or about the time of issue of notification under section 4 of the Act is the best evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. But in the instant case even the Collector has determined the market value of the land at Rs. 11/- per square foot which is much higher than Rs. 7.30 per square foot. That apart, in absence of any abjection or any formal claim quantifying the amount of compensation in response to the notice under section 9 of the Act, respondent No.3 could not question the award given by the Collector and ask the Collector to make a reference under section 18 of Act. The Special Judicial Officer ought to have considered the documents which the Collector took into consideration in determining the market value of the land. Non-consideration of the sale dated 1.5.89 by which the land appears to have been purchased by respondent No.3 Shri Sunshine Sawkmie about six months after issue of notification under section 4 of the Act, has not only vitiated the decision of the learned Special Judicial Officer, but has caused manifest injustice to the petitioner, who is ultimately bound to pay the price of undue enrichment of respondent No.3 by the impugned award. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that this petition under Article 227 is maintainable and this is a fit case where this Court would exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. As regards the locus standi of the petitioner to file petition Mr. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the most affected party for the arbitrary and illegal award made by the learned Special Judicial Officer, inasmuch as, petitioner would be bound to pay the price of undue enrichment of the respondent No. 3. As regards the locus standi of the petitioner to file petition Mr. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the most affected party for the arbitrary and illegal award made by the learned Special Judicial Officer, inasmuch as, petitioner would be bound to pay the price of undue enrichment of the respondent No. 3. Moreover, the Collector has failed to prefer appeal against the impugned award which on the face of it, is illegal and cannot be sustained, and that by the time petitioner got the copy of the impugned award, the appeal against it has become time barred. The petitioner has not got the possession of the acquired land, though it has already paid the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. 7. Mr. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ranjit Kumar Ghose vs. Secretary Indian Cyclostyling Society, AIR 1963 Calcutta 261. In the said case a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that: "The power under Article 227 can be exercised even suo motu by the Court as the custodian of all the justice within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction and for the vindication of its position as such. Where in the prayers, the petitioner asked not only for the Writ or Habeas Corpus, which was enough but also for other orders that might appear to the High Court fit and proper, the Court was perfectly justified in issuing a Rule under Article 227 of the Constitution." In the instant case the petitioner is the most affected party and apparently by the impugned award manifest injustice has been caused to the petitioner. As such, I hold that the petitioner has lecus standi to approach this Court in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. From what is stated above, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned award can not be sustained and liable to set aside. 9. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that it has not got the possession of the land due to objection of the Village Durbar, it is submitted by Mr. 8. From what is stated above, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned award can not be sustained and liable to set aside. 9. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that it has not got the possession of the land due to objection of the Village Durbar, it is submitted by Mr. B. Lamare, learned Govt., Advocate that it is apparent from the record that delivery of possession of the land acquired was taken on behalf of the petitioner by one of its authorised officer. But, from the record I find that in fact due to objection raised by the Village Durbar, the petitioner is unable to taken effective possession of the acquired land by putting boundary pillars before starting construction of the godown and the Collector and the Government is quite aware of it. In fact, various correspondences have been made by the parties in that regard. In my opinion Collector ought to have taken the Village Durbar into confidence before preceeding with the acquisition of the plot of land which is situated in the area where the Village Durbar exercise great influence. In the instant case, I find that the Collector proceeded to acquire the land in a perfunctory manner. Order sheets reveals that determination of compensation and payment of the compensation money to the claimant was given all importance. The Collector ought to have ascertained whether Sunshine Sawkmie, respondent No, 3 was the real owner of the land or not and whether the person from whom he claimed to have purchased the acquired land was the owner or not, before making payment of compensation money. Respondent No. 3 has filed only a photocopy of certified copy of the sale deed dated 1.5.89 in support of his claim of ownership. The payment of compensation money has been made to respondent No. 3 in hot haste without ascertaining whether he was the real owner or not. Tax payer's money can not be spent in such a perfunctory manner. If due to the objection by the Village Durbar, the petitioner is unable to construct the godown, the entire money (Rupees thirty lakh and odd) would be a wastage. Be that as it may, the Collector would make all efforts to obtain permission of the Village Durbar and put the petitioner in physical possession of the acquired land. If due to the objection by the Village Durbar, the petitioner is unable to construct the godown, the entire money (Rupees thirty lakh and odd) would be a wastage. Be that as it may, the Collector would make all efforts to obtain permission of the Village Durbar and put the petitioner in physical possession of the acquired land. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned award made by the learned Special Judicial Officer, Shillong in L.A. Case No. 37(K)/89 is set aside. I make no order to costs.