The court held that an arbitrator cannot award costs to the government in a land acquisition case where the government has not wholly succeeded in its defence.

CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J.:- The only point of substance in this Rule is the point taken about the order for costs. The petitioner before us is a claimant in a Land Acquisition case. An area of land, belonging to her and measuring 7.92 acres, was requisitioned in 1943 and derequisitioned in 1947. The Collector offered her a compensation of Rs.410/- on a certain basis, but not being satisfied with the adequacy of the amount, the petitioner asked for and obtained a reference under S.19(1) (b) of the Defence of India Act. The arbitrator was the Distirct Judge. The District Judge dealt with the various grounds urged before him, both as respects the adequacy of the compensation awarded for the actual area requisitioned and also as respects a further claim made on the ground of loss sustained because of the abandonment of some neighbouring areas by the cultivators because of the requisition of the aforesaid area of 7.92 acres. The grounds sought to be urged before us as regards the correctness of the arbitrators award are all grounds of fact, the decision of which depends upon evidence.

We are clearly of opinion that on an application under Art.227 of the Constitution it is not open to us, nor can it be proper to embark upon an examination of the evidence and substitute for the decision of the Court or tribunal below our own decision. As I have had occasion to explain elsewhere the scope of Art.227 of the Constitution is perfectly clear. It is intended to authorise the High Courts to see that the Courts or tribunals which cannot be controlled under S.115 Civil P.C. are kept in their proper places and that they exercise their jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the laws they administer. If these two conditions are satisfied, namely, if the Court or the tribunal concerned does not exceed jurisdiction and if it does not depart from the principles that it is enjoined to follow by the statute or other law concerned, there can be no occasion for interference, under Art.227 of the Constitution with the substance of the decision upon a further examination of its merits. The grounds sought to be urged by Mr. Mukherji against the decision of the arbitrator as regards the amount of the compensation cannot therefore be entertained.

2. A point, however, was taken against the arbitrators award for costs which in my opinion must be accepted as well-founded. As I have stated the amount offered by the Collector as compensation was Rs.410/-. The amount claimed by the petitioner before the arbitrator was Rs.14,270/-. By his order, the arbitrator awarded her a further sum of Rs.605-10 together with Rs.56-14-3 as costs. Having done that, the arbitrator proceeded to pass a decree for costs in favour of the Government of West Bengal and he did so on a basis which is described by him in the following words:

"Parties to get costs in proportion to their success. Pleaders fees are to be calculated on the same scale as provided in Rule 720(2) of the Civil Rules and Orders".

3. The arbitrator thought that the Rule referred to by him authorised him to pass a decree in favour of the State for pleaders fees, calculated on a sum of Rs.13,256-6-0 which he arrived at by deducting Rs.410/- offered by the Collector and the further sum of Rs.605-10-0 awarded by himself from the total amount of Rs.14,272/- claimed by the petitioner. The pleaders fee computed on that basis was Rs.540-2-0. The arbitrator added to that sum two further amounts as costs of the stamp and demi papers and made an order for a total amount of Rs.542-7-6 in favour of the State. Next, he set off the costs awarded to the State against the amount awarded to the petitioner and made a final order in favour of the petitioner for Rs.120-0-9 which was the balance left after the set-off had been carried out.

4. It was contended before us that the order made by the arbitrator as respects the costs to be recovered by the State was not only wrong in principle but also not even authorised by the Rules