- (1.) THE judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, dated the 11th of September, 1957 are being assailed before us both by the plaintiff and the defendant by their respective appeals Nos. 6 of 1958 and 15 of 1958. By this judgment the learned District Judge partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for a sum of rs. 4,340 as price of his two plots of land taken over by the covenanting State of bikaner; Rs. 1,000 as damages for his mental worries and Rs. 500 for incidental expenses; the total amounting to Rs. 5,840 against the defendant State, the suit having been dismissed against the other defendant, namely, the Union of India.
(2.) THE facts leading upto this appeal, in so far as they are admitted between the parties or have been held to be proved satisfactorily, may be briefly set out as follows :
(3.) THE plaintiff was the owner of the two plots of land in dispute situate on the gajner road near the Orphanage in the city of Bikaner having purchased the same from the said State some time in 1941 at the rate of 0-2-0 annas per, what is called the Malimandi sq. Gaj in force in that State, that is. 2' X 2' On the 16th or 17th of May 1946, the Bikaner State Government took possession of these plots without the consent of the plaintiff avowedly in order to re-design these and some other plots which fell to be covered by or under the Amarsinghpura Scheme. The plots in question measuring 8680 malmandi sq. yards, which were originally nos. 1 and 2 in the scheme were considered upon along with some other land in its close vicinity and were later known as Bungalow No. 27 which thus came under the possession of the then Maharaja of that State His Highness Shri Sadul Singhji and on his death in 1950 was inherited by his son His Highness Maharaja Shri kami Singhji. The plaintiff felt aggrieved by the manner in which he was arbitrarily deprived of the possession and ownership of his plots, and so, on the 23rd of May, 1946 sent a telegram to His Highness the Maharaja of Bikaner (Ex. 2) protesting against the unlawful assumption of possession of the said plots and the construction which was being raised on them. By his letter (Ex. 3) dated the 28th of May, 1946, the Private Secretary to His highness informed the plaintiff that whatever was being done on his plots was being carried out "under proper authority and orders. " The plaintiff was, however, assured that "you should have no fear and either another piece of land of approximately the same size will be shown to you nearby or compensation paid as may be decided in regard to the various plots sold in that area. " It was also mentioned in this letter that the step taken with respect to his plots had been "necessitated because of the general re-designing which has to be done on account of the old plan under which your plot was sold having been found to be unsatisfactory. " Nothing further transpired, however, for a period of about two years although, according to the plaintiff, he had been constantly making endeavours during this period to cither get certain other plots in exchange or monetary compensation therefor. On the 18th of May, 1948, vide letter Ex. 20/1, the Executive Officer and secretary of the City Improvement Committee, Bikaner informed the plaintiff that plots Nos. 10 and 11 situated in the same locality, that is, Amarsinghpura Scheme were proposed to be given to him in exchange for his old plots Nos. 1 and 2 and he was asked to convey his consent if he was agreeable to do so. It may be pointed out in parenthesis that according to the plaintiff as the total area of these two plots Nos. 10 and 11 was about 12,000 Malmandi sq. yards, it had been orally understood between the parties that he would be charged for the excess land that is, the land over and above the area of his plots Nos. 1 and 2, at the rate of 0-2-0 annas per sq. yard and therefore, in his reply dated the 4th of June, 1948 (Ex. 20/2) he wrote back to the Executive Officer of the City Improvement Committee. Bikaner this he was agreeable to accept the said plots in exchange provided his request for selling the extra land to him at the rate of 0-2-0 annas per sq. yard was accepted. Alternatively, he stated that in case the Government was not willing to accept his aforesaid proposal, he would like to accept the price of his plots according to the market rates which were in force in 1946. To this, the Executive Officer by his letter (Ex. 21) dated the 10th of July, 1948, replied that if he wanted the entire plots Nos. 10 and 11 including the excess land contained therein as compared with the area of his plots, he could have such excess area measuring 2,240 Malmandi sq. yards at the rate of Rs. 2 per such yard as that was the rate fixed by the government and it was not possible to reduce the same. An alternative proposal was, how ever, made to the plaintiff that in the event of his refusal to accept the proposal made to him, he may take plots Nos. 17 and 18 which were, more or less, of the same area as his original plots and that he should convey his desire as early as possible so that final action may be taken in the matter. Both these offers, the plaintiff expressed his inability to accept by his letter (Ex. 22/1) dated the 24th/26th July, 1948, the first because it had been "distinctly agreed with him and he had conveyed his consent therefor in writing that he would be given the extra land at the rate of 0-2-0 annas per sq. yard and that it was not open to the authorities to go back on that agreement, and the second be cause the alternative plots which had been offered to him, although in close vicinity of his original plots, were fur inferior in situation to his own. The plaintiff also made a counterproposal in this letter, the details of which it is unnecessary to set out. Then by a letter dated the 6th of April, 1919 (Ex. 23), of which an extract copy was sent to the plaintiff for his information, the Private Secretary to His Highness the Maharaja wrote to the Prime Minister of the Bikaner State that as the plaintiff wished to have land in exchange for the plots owned by him, and which had been taken over by the State, he should be given two entire plots Nos. 25 and 53 and a portion of plot No. 55 to make up his entire quantity of land being 8680 sq. yards in Sadulnagar which appears to be an area in the neighbourhood of the amarsinghpura scheme. From the plaintiff's reply dated the 21st of May, 1949 (Ex. 24) addressed to the chief Engineer, Bikaner, it appears that in the meantime a proposal had been made to him towards the end of March. 1949, that he should accept plot No. 25 (3168 yards) and plot No. 26 (3568 yards) and take the remaining 1944 yds. from plot No. 53 in Sadulnagar and that he had accepted the same but as the proposal now made to him as hereinbefore mentioned, was a different one, it was not acceptable to him, and he further said that he altogether repudiated the consent which had been given, by him. It may be conveniently mentioned M this stage that the princely State of Bikaner had integrated with the United State of Rajasthan on 7th of April 1949, and the ruler of that State had handed over charge of the reins of the administration to the rajpramukh of the new State. On the 7th of June, 1949, therefore the plaintiff complained to the Administrator at Bikaner how he had been deprived of his land and the delay that had taken place in giving him compensation for the same and he also made a number of proposals as to the manner in which the wrong done to him could be set right. Certain correspondence then appears to have taken place between the plaintiff and the Commissioner. Bikaner, by which lime the United state of Rajasthan had be come a Part B States under the Constitution. The Secretary to the Government in I he Commerce and Industries Department of the new Slate by his letter (Ex. 32) dated the 21st of August, 1950, conveyed to the plaintiff that the Government "see no reason to change the decision of the former Bikaner Government ". One might have thought that this was the end of the long-drawn negotiations between the parties but that did not prove to be so. Obviously, as result of the plaintiff's making further representations in the matter there appears to have been further correspondence between the Collector Bikaner and the Commissioner. Bikaner (See Collector's letter Ex. 92 dated the 27th of april 1951 in reply to the Commissioner's which has not been brought on the record ). The Collector seems to have been of the opinion that the plaintiff be directed to select certain plots in exchange of his original ones and the same be allotted to him, or, in the alternative, the original price paid by him for the plots nos. 1 and 2 he refunded to him at the rate paid by him. On the 18th of May, 1951 (Ex. 29/1) the plaintiff gave a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 21st of May (Ex. 33) the Commissioner wrote to the plaintiff that he was directed to ask him which plots he required in exchange of his original ones otherwise he will be refunded the original price paid by him for the latter. As the Commissioner had not specified the plots out of which the plaintiff could make his choice, further correspondence ensued between him and the plaintiff, and eventually by his letter (Ex. 35) dated the 27th of November 1951, the Commissioner told him that he could make his selection from plots Nos. 10, 13, 14, 24 and 39 in Amarsinghpura scheme which were lying vacant at the time. In reply to this, the plaintiff informed the Commissioner by his letter (Ex. 36/1) dated the 10th of February, 1952 that he had already given a notice tinder Section 80 C. P. C. , to the Government claiming a sum of Rs. 38,000 against it including the price of the land at Rs. 3 per sq. yard and interest and damages and that he would like to take cash compensation and not land in exchange, because price of land in Bikaner had been falling after the integration, but as he was keen to settle this matter out of Court, he would agree if land of the value of Rs. 35,000, which, according to him, would be of the measurement of some 24. 900 sq. yards from the plots mentioned to him is given in exchange, and if that is done he would be willing to drop his claim for damages. Then some further correspondence took place between the Executive Officer of the city Improvement Committee and the Collector and the plaintiff to which it is unnecessary to refer in detail except that some alternative proposals seem to have been negotiated between them, and mention may at once be made of the plaintiff's letter dated the 3rd of May. 1952 (Ex. 41) to the Executive Officer of the city Improvement Committee in which he stated that "pursuant to our talks with the learned Collector in connection of my land case, I have to say that if the land near my house, of which plan has been made and shown to me, measuring approximately 978 m. m. sq. yards together with 6 plots behind the road measuring in all 6000 m. m. sq yds. (plots Nos. 136 to 141 of Amarsinghpura) be given to me. I shall forgo my claim against Government. This is without prejudice and provided the matter is done within 10 days. " the Collector by his letter dated the 12/ 13th May, 1952 (Ex. 42) acknowledging the last mentioned letter of the plaintiff wrote to him saying that he had already submitted his proposal to the Commissioner and he would like him (plaintiff) to take up the matter with the Commissioner. The Collector's letter to the commissioner, to which reference had been made in the former's letter to the plaintiff, is dated the 7/8th May, 1952 (Ex. 95 ). This is a long letter which gives the history of the entire case right from 1942 onwards and contains the recommendation that the proposal to give the plot of land measuring approximately 978 sq. yards near the house of the plaintiff, which bore the value of Rs. 10 per m. m. , sq. yard according to the existing rate and which would meet half the claim of the plaintiff, together with six other plots measuring 1,000 sq. yards each not on the main road in the Amarginghpura scheme of the value of Rs. 1-4-0 per sq. yard which would give him a further compensation of Rs. 7,500 would, in his opinion, meet the justice of the case He also stated that the plaintiff had given his choice for plots Nos. 136 to 141 and that the Secretary of the City improvement Committee. Bikaner was also of the same opinion as his. The Collector, however, further wrote to the Commissioner that the latter might give an early hearing to the plaintiff in the presence of the Executive Officer, City improvement Committee and finalise the matter. The recommendation docs not seem to have found favour with the Government, and by his letter dated the 11th of August, 1952, the Executive Officer and Secretary of the City Improvement Committee, Bikaner informed the plaintiff that the Government had sanctioned the allotment of land measuring 978 sq. yards near his house in the city of Bikaner of the value of Rs. 9,780 in full settlement of the dispute relating to his two plots on the Gajner road. It is obvious that the remaining part of the recommendation made by the Collector that the plaintiff be allowed in exchange six more plots of the value of Rs. 7,500 was turned down by the Government. A communication to the same effect was made (vide Ex. 59) dated the 17th July, 1952 by the Secretary to the Government in the Local Self-Government and Medical and Public Health Department to the Commissioner, Bikaner. The plaintiff stoutly repudiated this offer by his letter dated the 23rd August, 1952 (Ex. 61/1) in which he said that it was not at all in conformity with the arrangement which had been finalised between him and the Collector, Bikaner. He also added, however, that if the Government were still in a mood to enter into a just and reasonable compromise, he would always be anxious to accept it As already stated the plaintiff had filed his suit in the Court of the District Judge, Bikaner in the meantime on the 2nd of July, 1952.;