COLLECTOR OF VARANASI versus GAURI SHANKAR MISRA & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 372 · Decided: 29-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COLLECTOR OF VARANASI 
v. 
GAURI SHANKAR MISRA & ORS. 
August 29, 1967 
(K. N. 
WANCHOO, C.J., R. 
S. 
BACHAWAT, 
V. 
RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEDGE, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, Art. 136-High Court-Whether can func-
tion 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 desig. 
nata and also functions as arbitrator or 'court'. 
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 compmsation to be paid for all except 
about 48 acres of the land. The question of the compensation pay-
able for the remaining land was referred to arbitration under s. 
19(1)(b) of the Act to be determinecL in accordance with s. ·19(1)(e) 
which entitled the respondents to compensation at the market value 
of the land. The arlitrator considered various sale deeds produced 
before him but rejected these and fixed the compensation by capi-
talising 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 ex)libited 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 prelimir.ary objection that no· special leave could have 
been granted by the Court under Art. 136 as the judgment appealed 
against was neither that of a court nor of a tritunal; 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(!)(b) were arbitration proceed-
ings 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)(0, the High Court func-
tions 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 o~ 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 de-
cides or determines any dispute that comes befote 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 
372 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
., 
G 
H 
COLi.EOToli, VAIWIASI v. d. S. MISRA (Hegde, J.) 
37:1 
said something which it did not mean. Furthermore, neither the 
Act, nor the, rules framed thereunder prescribe any special proce-
dure 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 Jaw referred to. 
(ii) On the facts, the High Court was not right in determining 
the compensation payatle 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 accord!ng to Jaw after giving the parties 
an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence. [380D-E] 
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 against 
the decision dated 11-11-1963 of the High Court of Judicature 
at Allahabad, in First Appeal No. 6
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.