WARYAM SINGH AND ANOTHER versus AMARNATH AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 19-01-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
565 
below· observe that it is common knowledge that since 
the end of the war land, particularly around Calcutta, 
has increased enormously in value and might still 
further increase very considerably in value ·when the 
pace of industrialisation increases. Any principle for 
determining compensation which denies to the owner 
this increment in value cannot result in the .ascertain-
ment of the true equivalent of the land appropriated. 
We accordingly hold that the latter part of proviso 
(b) to section 8 of the impugned Act which fixes the 
market value on December 31, 1946, as the maximum 
compensation for lands acquired under it offends against 
the provisions of article 31 (2) 
and is unconstitutional 
and void. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
Agent for the appellant : P. K. Bose. 
Agent for respondents Nos. 
1, 2 and 3 : S. C. 
Banerjee. 
Agent for the intervener: C. H. Rajadhyaks?a. 
WARYAM SINGH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
AMARNATH AND ANOTHER. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., B. K. 
MuKHERJF.A, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and 
GHULAM HASAN JJ. J 
Constitution of India, art,·. 227 and 241-High Court-Whe-
ther conferred power of judicial superintendence-Rent 
Controller 
and 
District fudge-Whether Tribunals within the meaning of 
art. 227-East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 
(III of 1949) 
as 
extended to 
Himachal Pradesh, 
s. 
13(2)(i), Proviso-
Non-payment of arrears of rent on first hearing of application for 
ejectment-Legal effect thereof. 
The Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh 
exercises jurisdiction in 
relation to the \Vhole 
of the territories of 
Himachal Pradesh. 
The Rent Control and the 
District Judge exercising juris· 
diction under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, are 
certainly tribunals if not courts within the meaning of art. 227 of 
the 
Constitution 
and 
they' function 
within 
the territories 
of 
1953 
TM State of· 
West 
Bengal 
and Othtrs. 
Patanjali Sastrf 
C.J. 
1954 
Jan. 19·. 
1951 
·.Wal)'atn Singh 
and Another 
v. 
Amarnath and 
Anoti,er. 
Das]. 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ll954] 
Himachal Pra<lesh. 
Therefore art. 227(1) 
rca<l with art. 241 am-
fcrs on the Court of the Judicial Com1nissioner po\ver 
of superin-
ten<lencc over such tribunals. 
The \VorJs 
"in relation to vvhich" 
in art. 227 ( 1) qualify the 
\vorJ "territories'' and not the \Vords "courts an<l tribunals". 
1~here is no force in the contention that cl. (2) of art. 227 only 
confers on the 1-Iigh Court adn1inistrative superintendence over the 
subordinate courts and tribunals because cl. (2) of the :i.:·ticle is 
expressed t(; be 
\vithout prejudice to the generality of tho(! provi-
sions in cl. (1). 
The po\ver 
of superinten<lence conferred 
by art. 227 should 
be exercised inost sparingly and only 
in appropriate cases in order 
to keep the subordinate 
courts 
\Vithin the bounds 
of their autho-
rity and not for correcting: 111crc errors. 
Tn 
vic\V 
of the a<linitted failure 
by the tenants to pay the 
rent as pro\'illed by the rent dcc<l or at the first hearing of the cuurt 
under the pn.i\·iso 
to s. 
13(2)(1) the lo\Vcr 
courts had act~d arbi-
trarily 
in refusing 
to 111ake 
an order 
for cjcctment 
against the 
tenants \\·ho ha<l not done 
\Vhat was incumbent on them to do 
under the la\V 
an<l thereby refused to exercise 
jurisdiction 
vested 
in the1n by la\V and it \Vas a case 
\vhich called for interference hy 
the Court of Judicial Co1nmissioner and it acted quite properly 
in 
doing so. 
Moti Lal v. The State 
through 
Shriniati Sagratvati 
(I.L.R. 
119521 1 All. 558 at p. 567) 
and Dalmia fain 
Airways Ltd. v. 
Sukumar :\lukherjee (A.LR. 1951 Cal. 193) referred to. 
C1v1L 
APPELLATE 
JuR1so1cTIO'<: Civil Appeal No. 
64 of 1953. 
Appeal by special leave from the JuJgment anJ 
Decree, dated the 29th November, 1951, of the Court 
of the Judicial Commissioner for Himachal Pradesh at 
Simla in Civil Revision No. 52 of 1951. 
Gopal Singh for the appellants. 
S. C. Isaacs (Amar Nath Chana, with him) for the 
respondents. 
1954. 
January 
19. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAs J .-This is an appeal by special leave against 
the order made on the 20th November, 1951, by the 
Judicial 
Commissioner 
of 
Himachal 
Pradesh 
in 
proceeJings 
instituted 
by the 
respondents 
under 
'1rticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 
There is 
leading up 
no substantial 
to 
the 
present 
dispute 
appeal. 
as to 
The 
the fac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.