Skip to content


The Assistant Collector, South Salsette Vs. Shapurji Cawasji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 364 of 1925
Judge
Reported in(1931)33BOMLR1210
AppellantThe Assistant Collector, South Salsette
RespondentShapurji Cawasji
Excerpt:
land acquisition act (i of 1894), section 27(2)-costs-land acquisition proceedings section 27(2) of the land acquisition act, 1894, is limited to the proceedings in the court of first instance. costs of proceedings in higher courts are in the discretion of those courts. - - moreover, the claimant's argument would give rise to this singular result that if a collector makes an award, which is varied and not upheld in the district court and the claimant then unsuccessfully appeals to this court and then to the privy council, the claimant would be entitled to the costs of these unsuccessful appeals......argument involves this, that the words in sub-section (2).when the award of the collector is not upheld, the costs shall ordinarily be paid by the collector.governs the whole proceedings, both in the court of first instance and in any subsequent courts of appeal. i think that is not the right view. i think section 27(2) is limited to the proceedings in the court of first instance. the word ' upheld ' would not be applicable to any other court except the court of first instance, because that is the only court in which the question of upholding the collector's award arises, and in any other court the question would be as to whether the decision of the lower court and not of the collector should be upheld. moreover, the claimant's argument would give rise to this singular result that if a.....
Judgment:

Murphy, J.

1. delivered a judgment dealing with the merits of the case.

Beaumont C.J.

2. In this case it has been argued that the question of costs is governed by Section 27(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. That argument involves this, that the words in Sub-section (2).

When the award of the Collector is not upheld, the costs shall ordinarily be paid by the Collector.

governs the whole proceedings, both in the Court of first instance and in any subsequent Courts of appeal. I think that is not the right view. I think Section 27(2) is limited to the proceedings in the Court of first instance. The word ' upheld ' would not be applicable to any other Court except the Court of first instance, because that is the only Court in which the question of upholding the Collector's award arises, and in any other Court the question would be as to whether the decision of the lower Court and not of the Collector should be upheld. Moreover, the claimant's argument would give rise to this singular result that if a Collector makes an award, which is varied and not upheld in the District Court and the claimant then unsuccessfully appeals to this Court and then to the Privy Council, the claimant would be entitled to the costs of these unsuccessful appeals. That cannot, I think, have been intended, I think, therefore, the costs are in our discretion.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //