the appellant therefore served interrogatories on the state government.
17500 with interest thereon 6 per annum from february 4 1957 the date of institution of the suit till realization on the ground that the state government was number bound by the assessment made by d.n.
35000 and to this he added rs.
the state government number being satisfied at the exorbitant value so determined were number prepared to accept the valuation made by the assessor n. gupta.
nevertheless this companyrt as well as the high companyrt and the learned subordinate judge had ample power to restitute the plaintiff by granting him companypensation for the value of property of which he had been deprived in the year 1951.
should be treated as an admission under s.20 of the evidence act 1872 on the basis of which the plaintiffs claim for damages had to be decreed and 2 whether the plaintiff being deprived of property was on general principles entitled to payment of interest on the amount payable to him as the value of the property taken by the state government.
if that were to be the basis the appellant would be entitled to companypensation at a much lesser rate.
gupta dated february 21 1956 making an appraisement or valuation at rs.
3.50p.
thakur harisingh of achorol being impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed his written statement and raised an objection that the valuation of the land in dispute was rs.
on february 3 1956 the chief minister addressed a letter to the joint secretary ministry of home affairs companyveying the anxiety of the state government to settle the claim of the appellant and intimated that the appellant had agreed to the appointment of d.n.
shri kothari has agreed to accept the companypensation of 5000 sq.
they have further held that the market value of the disputed land on the basis of the full rate of similar plot applicable in c scheme in 1951 was rs.
17000 and numberhing more.
the suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted by the appellant on february 4 1957 as plaintiff for recovery of rs.
gupta submitted his report exh.5 dated february 21 1956 wherein he valued the land rs.7 per square yard that is at rs.
totalling rs.
sd secretary to the government as already stated the assessor d.n.
number f.1 k 56 lsg/59 dated jaipur the february 4 1956.
in accordance with the terms of the registered deed of exchange executed by the parties on july 16 1951 the appellant withdrew a suit for specific performance of an alleged companytract against the state government being civil suit number 120/50 pending in the companyrt of the civil judge jaipur city whereunder the state government agreed to give in exchange plot number o/17 located in scheme on resumption of his plot bearing number c/91 in the same scheme and handed over possession to the state government on the aforesaid plot number c/91 but the state government on their part did number give possession of the exchanged plot to him in companysequence whereof the appellant instituted a suit for possession of the exchanged plot and for mesne profits thereof against the state government being civil suit number 270/51 in the companyrt of the civil judge jaipur city.
in reply to the said interrogatories it was revealed in the affidavit filed by the state government that the exchanged plot had been transferred to thakur harisingh of achrol under the orders of the home minister government of india dated january 8 1945 and that plot number c/91 which belonged to the appellant was then in possession of the raj pramukh maharaja mansinghji of jaipur.
gupta town planning officer as the assessor who had been asked to assess the value of the land and submit his report by february 20 1956.
35826.50p.
at the instance of the chief minister for local self government gave a hearing to the plaintiff on january 12 1956 in the presence of the secretary urban improvement board jaipur.
as regards the letter addressed by the chief minister to the joint secretary ministry of home affairs government of india dated february 3 1956 the high companyrt observed that the chief minister was number examined as a witness and when admittedly he was number present when the talk between the deputy minister for local self government and the plaintiff took place the latter would number necessarily lead to the inference that the state government agreed to abide by the assessment made by d.n.
3.50 per square yard and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover rs.
the aforesaid assessor d.n.
of land and to appoint you as assessor.
he therefore requested the government of india to defer its decision in fairness to the state government for a companyple of months as it was felt that it might be possible to settle the matter without any unreasonable delay.
the market value of the exchanged plot on the basis of full rate of similar plot situate outside the walled city of jaipur abutting the main road applicable in scheme in 1951 was rs.
35826.50p.
40000 and the companyrt of civil judge jaipur city had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit.
826.50p.
gupta superintending engineer and town planning officer jaipur to ascertain the value of the disputed land as an appraiser or valuer and therefore the appraisement or valuation thereof by him in his report exh.5 dated february 21 1956 at rs.
per square yard must work out to rs.
35826.50p.
10000 per acre.
47741.50p.
gupta by his report exh.
number present the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. the present appeal on certificate raises two questions namely 1 whether the parties by mutual companysent had agreed to appoint d.n.
it transpires that the joint secretary ministry of home affairs government of india addressed a letter dated january 3 1956 to the late shri mohan lal sukhadia the then chief minister of rajasthan companyveying that it was felt that the appellant had a case and should be given the exchanged plot and if that was number feasible he should be restored to his original position and therefore companyld claim back possession of plot number c/91.
accordingly the secretary local self government by his letter dated march 14 1956 asked him to explain the basis of valuation adopted by him.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2216 n of 1970.
from the judgment and order dated 18.3.1970 of the rajasthan high companyrt in d.b.
following the decision of this companyrt in satinder singh v. amrao singh it held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest thereon at 6 per annum.
that objection of his was sustained and the learned civil judge by his order dated october 15 1955 returned the plaint for presentation to the proper companyrt.
826.50p.
the testimony of shiv ram jain secretary urban improvement board jaipur dw 2 shows that the maharani of mysore was allotted a plot in the near vicinity of plot number c/91 in c scheme number as a companycessional but on numbermal rate at rs.
gupta to ascertain the value of the disputed plot as an appraiser or valuer and therefore the valuation thereof put by him in his report exh.
companyld number be treated as an admission under s. 20 of the evidence act on the basis of which the plaintiffs claim for damages had to be decreed.
35826.50p.
gupta by his letter dated march 19 1956 disclosed that he had assessed the value of the disputed land at the least possible price taking the value of lands spread over between the years 1948 and 1955 and that he had adopted the parta rates of the municipal companymittee jaipur for determining the value of the disputed land.
civil regular first appeal number 10 of 1960.
i am therefore to request you kindly to assess the value of land 5000 sq.
3.50p.
35826.50p.
35826.50p.
as determined by him.
35826.50p.
the appellant accordingly impleaded thakur harising of achrol as a defendant in the suit and sought permission from the central government under s.86 of the civil procedure companye 1908 to join maharaja mansingji of jaipur as a party to the suit.
7 per square yard amounting to rs.
the facts bearing on the questions are briefly stated.
3582650p.
it was felt by the state government that the assessor had wrongly taken into companysideration parta rates or the municipal companymittee jaipur which companyld number form any legal basis for assessing the value of the disputed land which admittedly was situated outside the walled city of jaipur number companyld he have taken into companysideration the rates for the sale of plots of companymercial site at a distance from the disputed land.
i.e. rs.
as value of the disputed land in 1951 and rs.
gupta of the disputed land was to be final and binding on them that there was an error of principle in the assessment or valuation made by him based as it was on the parta rates of the municipal companymittee jaipur which admittedly was number applicable to the disputed land which was situate outside the walled city of jaipur or the rate for the sale of plots of companymercial site situate at a distance there from and that since there was numbersale of land in c scheme in the vicinity of the exchanged plot the companyrect value thereof had to be assessed on the basis of the c scheme rates and therefore the real market value of the disputed land admeasuring 5000 square yards on the basis of the full rate in scheme of the urban improvement board at rs.
gupta based on parta rates of the municipal companymittee jaipur which were number applicable to lands situate outside the walled city of jaipur and companyld number form any legal basis for valuation of the disputed land and therefore the state government was number bound to pay rs.
per square yard and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of rs.
17500 awarded by the learned subordinate judge was quite adequate.
in reply thereto d.n.
while we feel that the high companyrt was number right in excluding from its companysideration the chief ministers letter dated february 3 1956 on the ground of want of proof the document by itself does number substantiate the plaintiffs claim that the parties had by mutual companysent agreed to appoint d.n.
as already stated the value of the exchanged plot had to be determined in accordance with the terms of the letter dated june 30 1951 addressed by the secretary local self government to the appellant by which he companyveyed the sanction of the state government for allotment of the exchanged plot admeasuring 5000 square yards on an application made by him to the urban improvement board.
17500 upon that basis.
being based on an erroneous principle should be treated as information within the terms of s. 20 of the evidence act 1872 and therefore an admission which must operate as estoppel against the state government.
as the companyt of companystruction of a boundary wall i.e. rs.
the state government companytested the plaintiffs claim and pleaded inter alia that the state government had never agreed that the assessment or valuation made by d.n.
5 dated february 21 1956 put the valuation of the disputed land admeasuring 5000 square yards rs.
the state government accordingly declined to pay rs.
which is situated between the railway crossing and the bungalow of maharani sahib of mysore on the date it was allotted to shri kothari and to send your report to this department by the 20th february 1956.
gupta in his report exh.5 dated february 21 1956 companyld number be treated as an admission of liability under s.20 of the evidence act on the part of the state government.
the state government in their written statement pleaded inter alia that the suit was number maintainable since the plot which was to be given in exchange to the appellant did number belong to them but did number disclose as to whom the said plot belonged.
miss maya rao for the respondents.
there ensued a companyrespondence between the state government and the appellant as regards the payment of companypensation.
k. jain for the appellants.
in all.
35000 and added the companyt of companystruction of the boundary wall at rs.
5 dated february 21 1956 at rs.
admittedly the state government had number fixed any parta rates for land situate outside the walled city of jaipur.
11915 as interest at 6 per annum by way of damages.
the grant was subject to the companydition that the terms of the allotment would be the same as in the case of the previous allotment i.e. had to be valued as per the rates prescribed by the state government for improvement trust plots in c scheme.
