ASSISTANT COLLECTOR Vs. DAMODARDAS TRIBHUVANDAS BHANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I now turn to the four other appeals, namely, Nos. 38, 39, 195 and 233 which are all by Government on the question of costs. Now here there has been no appeal by any of the claimant-landowners. Therefore, we must take it that the decision of the learned Judge upholding the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of these particular pieces of land was correct. The award so made was at the uniform rate, as far as these lands are concerned, of Rs. 1,250 per acre. But as regards costs the learned Judge stated as follows in paragraph 28 of his judgment: I, therefore, dismiss all the claims, but without costs. The uncertainty of market created by the boom and its aftermath has been greatly responsible for the exaggerated demands. And having regard to that fact, I think this is not a fit) case where I should saddle the owners with Government costs under Section 27.

(2.) Now, what jurisdiction are we exercising in the matter of costs in these land acquisition proceedings? Section 27(2) does not apply in the events which have happened, because the award of the Collector has been upheld. One relevant section is Section 27(1) which directs: Every such award shall also state the amount, of costs incurred in the proceedings under this Party, and by what persona and in what) proportions they are to be paid. Further Section 53 says: Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Civil P. C. shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act. It seems to us, therefore, that in a case like the present where there is nothing inconsistent in the special provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, we have to refer to Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals with costs. That section, shortly stated, leaves the costs in the discretion of the Court, but provides in Sub- section (2) that "where the Court directs that any costs shall not follow the event, the Court shall state its reasons in writing."

(3.) Now, the general rule is clear both in England and under the Code, in India, namely, that speaking generally, costs ought to follow the event. But there may be certain circumstances to justify the Court in departing from that general rule and in depriving the successful party of his costs. Illustrations will be found in some of the authorities which have been cited to us, For instance, in Cooper V/s. Whittingham (1880) 15 Ch. D. 501, Sir George Jessel says (p. 504.): As I understand the law as to costs it is this, that where a plaintiff comes to enforce a legal right, and there has been do misconduct on his part-no emission of neglect which would induce the Court to deprive him of his costs the Court has no discretion, and cannot take away the plaintiff's right to costs. There may be misconduct of many sorts : for instance, there may be misconduct a commencing the proceedings, or some miscarriage in the procedure, or an oppressive or vexatious mode of conducting the proceedings, or other misconconduct which will induce the Court to refuse costs; but where there is nothing of the kind the rule is plain and well settled, and is as I have stated it. It is, for instance, no answer where a plaintiff asserts a legal right for a defendant to allege his ignorance of such right, and to say, if I had known of your right I should not have infringed it."