CHAKRAVARTTI,.J. - (1.) 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 Section 19 (1Kb) 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 Article 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 Article 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 Section 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 Article 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 arbitrator's 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/ -. Byhis order, the arbitrator awarded her a furthersum of Rs. 605 -10 together with Rs. 56 -14 -3 as costs.Having done that, tne arbitrator proceeded to passa decree tor costs in favour of the Governmentof West Bengal and he did so on a basis which isdescribed by him in the following words: 'Parties to get costs in proportion to their success.Pleader's fees are to be calculated on the samescale as provided in Rule 720(2) of the CivilRules 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 pleader's 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 pleader's 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. 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 on which the arbitrator had relied. In my opinion that contention is plainly right and must be given effect to. The set of rules among which Rule 720 occurs are rules regarding fees payable to legal practitioners framed under Section 27 (c) of the Legal Practitioners Act. It would appear that those rules are only intended to fix the scales of fees allowable to pleaders by decrees of Courts and I doubt whether they have any reference at all to the kind of order for costs which the Courts ought or ought not to make in particular cases. Be that as it may, what the arbitrator has done is to award costs both to the claimant and to the State in proportion to the sttccess of the claimant in the first case and her failure in the second. It is as if in a suit for money, say for Rs. 5000/ - a decree was passed for Rs. 2000/ - and then the Court made an order for costs in favour of the plaintiff proportionate to Rs. 2000/ - and a decree in favour of the defendant proportionate to Rs. 3000/ -. It is true that even in the case of a civil suit, if the suit succeeds, the decree drawn up contains a statement of the costs payable to the defendant, but that is only for use in case the decree is reversed on appeal and the defendant is awarded the costs of the civil Court. The decree in the present case makes a certain amount of costs instantly payable to the defendant, although the plaintiff has succeeded, it may be in part. In my view, a decree of that kind is altogether wrong in principle, but the present case need not be decided by reference to any principle of a general character.;