497 of 1962 to the High Court.
1, Choti Gwaltoli No.
2 50 per sq .ft.
Against the companymon order of the Additional District Judge three revisions, two by the Municipal Corporation and one by the applicant, were filed.
The High Court held that in a proceeding under s. 387 4 of the Act there was numberprovision to enable the Corporation to withdraw from any setback already given and numberstatutory provision had been pointed out entitling the Court to permit the Corporation to withdraw.
Against this order the Corporation filed Civil Revision No.
The High Court then dealt with the point raised by the learned companynsel for the Municipal Corporation that the Additional District Judge had refused to permit the Corporation to withdraw the acquisition proceedings and had thus refused to exercise jurisdiction.
The N.A. may or may number acquire the land at its own risk.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated October 12, 1962 and December 19, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Civil Revision Nos.
145/ per sq.
with interest at 6 per annum from the date of the delivery of the possession.
195 and 497 of 1962 respectively.
The application is rejected.
816 dated October 30, 1959, had informed him that in accordance with the Road Widening Scheme a set back of total, area of 1455.1 sq.
He further alleged that the arbitrators appointed by the parties had given an award which was also number acceptable to him.
while he demanded Rs.
195 of 1962 was filed the Municipal Corporation alleging that the companypensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge was excessive and praying that fair companypensation be fixed.
The Corporation again filed an application for permission to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings and in the alternative it was prayed that the money deposited in Court against this execution case may be given to the applicant only when he gives vacant possession of the land companyered by the set back scheme.
He also valued the structure.
387 4 and 5 of the Madhya Bharat Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act in the Court of District Judge, Indore.
These revisions came to be filed in the High Court in the following circumstances.
1, Indore, and that the Municipal Corporation proposed to give him companypensation only at the rate of Rs.
The arbitrators had given Rs.
In para 10 of this application it was alleged that the memo regarding set back was issued on October 30, 1959, and therefore the price is to be settled at the rates prevailing on that date.
The Additional District Judge on February 6, 1962, disposed of both the applications by one order and he fixed the companypensation of land in question at the rate of Rs30/ per sq.
He alleged that the Municipal Corporation by its memo No.
which was number acceptable to him.
Various issues were framed by the Additional District Judge, Indore, but they were all directed to determining the fair amount of companypensation including interest.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Civil Revision No.
On January 21, 1961, the respondent K.N. Palshikarhereinafter referred to as the applicant filed an application under ss.
He further ordered that the applicant shall be entitled to 15 solatium as decided by the award.
had been cut down from his land companyprised in House No.
50/ per sq.
During the pendency of these applications the Municipal Corporation applied on August 1, 1961, to the Additional District Judge for withdrawing the claim of the Corporation over a portion of the land in question.
The Additional District Judge by his order dated October 31, 1962, repelled these companytentions and allowed the applicant to withdraw the money deposited by the Corporation.
38 on Road No.
The Municipal Corporation also applied on January 19, 1961, under s. 387 4 of the Act praying mat me price of the land be settled as per s. 387 4 .
1137 and 1138 of 1965.
The High Court held that the Additional District Judge had given opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and determined the amount of companypensation after hearing the parties and in these circumstances it companyld number be said that he was guilty of companymitting irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction, even assuming that the amount determined as payable was either too high or too low.
In the result the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
lie further submitted that under s. 305 of the Act the vesting of the property occurs immediately when,the rebuilding starts and, therefore, there is numbernecessity of executing the sale deed.
In his reply to this application the applicant, Palshikar, accepted para 10 of the application.
The Municipal Corporation in its reply dated February 28, 1961, submitted that the companypensation given by the arbitrators was very much in excess of the actual price of the land and prayed that the application be dismissed.
1 New No.
The Corporation objected to the execution on the ground that the applicant had number given possession of the disputed land to the Corporation number had he executed a sale deed with respect to it in its favour.
The applicant companytroverted these objections and submitted that demand of possession prior to deposit of the decretal amount was illegal and companytrary to s. 387 5 of the Act.
High Court in two Civil Revisions, Civil Revision No.
195 of 1962 and Civil Revision No.
P. Jhanjharia, and P.C. Bhartari, for the appellant in both the appeals .
K. Saksena and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent in both the appeals .
497 of 1962.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh.
On February 2, 1962, the Additional District Judge passed the following order The N.A. applied that the Improvement Board is going to acquire portion of the land in question and hence the N.A. shall number be companypelled to acquire this land.
In the meantime the applicant filed an application under s. 388 of the Act for execution of the order of the Additional District Judge dated February 6, 1962.
