RADHA SWAMI SATSANG SABHA Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which these three appeals arise are set out in full in our order of remand dated 4 April 1938. Under that order we remitted the following issue to the lower Court: Whether the declaration which was made by the Local Government under Section 6(1), Land Acquisition Act, was invalid by reason of non- compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A and the first portion of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) The finding of the District Judge--who took the case on to his own file--is that Bohra Tara Chand, plaintiff, has failed to show that he had no notice of the date fixed for hearing his objection under Section 5-A(1) of the Act, and therefore the declaration made by the Government under Section 6(1) of the Act was not invalid. We will first take up the appeal in respect of which this issue was remitted, namely F.A. No. 27 of 1934. The objection aforesaid is dated and was presented on 4 January 1932. At the foot of it are the words: "(Sd). Bohra Tara Chand. Through Asharfi Lal, Pleader, Agra." On the margin the Land Acquisition Officer wrote: Give a date 15 days hence and inform parties that I will hear legal objections on that date and will also record any evidence in support of them if the parties wish to produce.

(3.) Below this order we find "18 January 1932 fixed," and this is admittedly in the handwriting of the Land Acquisition Officer's clerk, Sharafat Husain, and immediately below this there is the signature of Bohra Tara Chand. Babu Asharfi Lal and Sharafat Husain were both examined by the District Judge. B. Asharfi Lal was admittedly the plaintiff's counsel; and he says that he drafted the objection and then the plaintiff faired it out. After witness had signed the objection the plaintiff took it away; he wanted to save counsel's fee by presenting the objection in person. Witness says that he does not necessarily get his client's signature on an application after signing, "(Sd.) so and so;" the signature "may be made in my clerk's presence." He says, "The signature on Ex. B was not, I think, made in my presence. It is in a place that would be most unusual for such signatures." The credibility of this witness is impeached on the ground that he subsequently worked as counsel for the Sab Sangh Sabha and that there was litigation between him and the plaintiff in respect of a statement of accounts. Sharafat Husain says that the Land Acquisition Officer wrote the order on the margin. He then says: In compliance with that order I fixed a date. The writing underneath this in the margin of Ex. B is mine. I think that Bohara Tara Chand signed underneath my writing to show that he had received information of the date. His signature is in the same ink as my writing. As far as I remember I fixed the date and informed him and took his signature.