Summary
The Government acquired about 500 acres of land from the respondents under the Defence of India Act, 1939, and a settlement was reached in respect of the compensation to be paid for all except about 48 acres of the land. The question of the compensation payable for the remaining land was referred to arbitration under s. 19(1)(b) of the Act to be determined in accordance with s. 19(1)(e) which entitled the respondents to compensation at the market value of the land. The arbitrator considered various sale deeds produced before him but rejected these and fixed the compensation by capitalising the annual profits from the lands. In an appeal against his award by the respondents under s.
19(1)(f) of the Act, the High Court differed from the Arbitrator and enhanced the compensation payable by fixing it on the basis of a sale deed exhibited before the arbitrator.In appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave given to the appellant Collector, it was contended on behalf of the respondents by way of a preliminary objection that no special leave could have been granted by the Court under Art. 136 as the judgment appealed against %-,as neither that of a court nor of a tribunal; the High Court while acting under s. 19(1)(f) was a persona designata and not a court or a tribunal; proceedings before the arbitrator appointed by the Central Government under s. 19(1)(b) were arbitration proceedings leading to an award made by him, when the matter was taken up in appeal to the High Court, the appeal proceedings did not cease to be arbitration proceedings and their original character continued so that the decision made by the High Court should also be considered as an award and the High Court considered as having functioned as an arbitrator.Held: (i) While acting under s. 19(1)(f), the High Court functions as a 'court' and not as a designated person.[378E]Hanskumar Kishanchand v. Union of India, [1959] S.C.R. 1177, disapproved.The High Court of a State is at the apex of a State's judicial system. It is a court of record and it is difficult to think of a High Court as anything other than a'court'. No judicial power was ever entrusted to the High Court except as a 'court' and whenever it decides or determines any dispute that comes before it, it invariably does so as a 'court'. That apart, when s. 19(1)(f) specifically says that an appeal against the order of an arbitrator lies to the High Court, there was no justification. for thinking that the legislature 373said something which it did not mean. Furthermore, neither the Act, nor the rules framed thereunder prescribe any special procedure for the disposal of appeals under s.19(1)(f) and appeals under that provision have to be disposed of in the same manner as other appeals to the High Court according to its own rules of practice and procedure.[375F-G. 377B-C]Case law referred to.(ii) On the facts, the High Court was not right in determining the compensation payable on the basis of the one sale deed as this could not be considered a contemporaneous transaction; the decision of the High Court must therefore be set aside and the case remitted to that court for disposal according to law after giving the parties an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence. [380D-E]See the full content of this document
Extract
Collector Of Varanasi VS. Gauri Shankar Misra & Ors.
PETITIONER: COLLECTOR OF VARANASI Vs.RESPONDENT: GAURI SHANKAR MISRA & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/08/1967BENCH: HEGDE, K.S.BENCH: HEGDE, K.S.WANCHOO, K.N. (CJ)BACHAWAT, R.S.RAMASWAMI, V.MITTER, G.K.CITATION: 1968 AIR 384 1968 SCR (1) 372CITATOR INFO : F 1977 SC 638 (8)ACT: Constitution of India, Art. 136--High Court--Whether can function in a capacity other than that of a'Court--therefore whether special leave can be granted.Defence of India Act, 1939, s. 19(1)(f)--Appeal to High Court against award of arbitrator--Whether High Court persona designata and also functions as arbitrator or'court'.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1040 of 1965.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 11, 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 60 of 1960.C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant.J. P. Goyal and Raghunath Singh, for the respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal by the Collector of Varanasi by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution, is directed aga...
See the full content of this document