HIRACHAND KOTHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 09-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
11 
644 
HIRACHAND KOTHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
May 9, 1985. 
[A.P. SEN AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 20 'Inforn.ation' or opinion on matter 
in dispute-Reference by party to a third person-Staten1ents rr.ade by third 
person receivable as admission-' lnformation'-iVhat is. 
Pursuant to a registered deed of exchange dated July 16, 1951 executed 
between the parties, the appellant withdrew a suit for specific performance of 
an alleged contract against the State Government under which the Government 
were to resume his plot no. C/91 in 'C' Scheme allotted to him by Improve· 
meat Trust, Jaipur for a sum of Rs 5000 in 1951 and give in exchange another 
plot in the same scheme on the same terms. Und:r the terms of the deed, the 
State Government agreed to give in exchange plot no. 0/ 17 in 'C' Scheme to 
the appellant on resumption of his plot bearing no. C191. 
In terms thereof, 
the appellant handed over possession of his plot no. C/91 to the State Govern-
ment but the State Government on their part did not give possession of the 
exchanged plot to him. Thereupon, the appellant brought a suit for possession 
of the exchanged plot and for mesne profits thereof. It was revealed in answer 
to the interrogatories served by the appellant that the exchanged plot bad 
already been transferred by the State Government to Thakur Harisingh of 
Achrol under the orders of the Home t-/rinister, Government of India dated 
January 8, 1945 and that plot no. C/91 which belonged to the appellant was 
then in possession of the Raj Pramukh Maharaja of Jaipur. The appellant 
accordingly impleaded Thakur Harisingh of Achrol as a party to the suit and 
sought permission from the Central Government under s. 86 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 to join Maharaja Mansinghji of Jaipur as a party to the 
suit. The objection raised by Thakur Harisingh of Achrol as to the pecuniary 
jurisdiction of the Court was sustained and the Civil Judge, Jaipur City retur-
ned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. 
It transpired during the pendency of the aforesaid suit that the Joint 
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had addressed a 
letter dated January 3, 1956 to the then Chief Minister of Rajasthan conveying 
that it was felt that the appellant had a case and shoLdd be given the exchanged 
plot and if that was not feasible he should be restored back in possession of 
plot no. C/91. In response to the same, the Chief Minister addressed a letter 
dated Febuary 3, 1956 to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs convey-; 
ing the anxiety of the State Government to settle the claim of the appellant 
and intimated that the appellant had agreed to the appointment of the Town 
Planning Officer, Jaipur a~ the assess or who had been askeQ to ~ssess the 
-
lliRACliAND v. RAiASNHAN 
64S 
value of the land and submit his report, with a request that the Government 
of India should defer its decision in fairness to the State Government for a 
couple of months as it was felt that it might be possible to settle the claim 
without any unreasonable delay. the Town Planning Officer by his report 
(Exh. 5) dated February 21, 1956 put the valuation of the disputed land in 1951 
admeasuring 5,000 square yards at Rs. 7 per square yard at 35,000 and to this 
he added Rs. 826.50p as the cost of construction of a boundary wall i.e. 
Rs. 35,826 SOp. in all. [651 G·H, 652 A) 
Tho State Government declined to pay the compensation. The appellant 
instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs. 47 ,741.SOp. as damages i.e. 
Rs. 35,826.50p. to wards the 
value of disputed land and Rs. 11,915 as 
compensation. 
A 
8 
The Civil Judge held that on tho admission of the plaintiff as PW. 6 and 
C 
his witnesses Secretary, Urban Improvement Board, P.W. 3 and the Deputy 
Minister it was clear that the Town Planning Officer was appointed merely to 
assess the value of the disputed land and that it was never agreed that whatever 
appraisement or valuation that he may make would be binding on both the 
parties, nor did the Deputy Minister make any commitment that such assess· 
ment would be binding on the State Government and that therefore the 
appraisement or valuation could not be treated as an 'admission of liability' 
D 
under section 20 of the Evidence Act, 1872 on the part of the State 
Government. It was further held that the correct value on the basis of the 
notification

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.