Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

55. The evidence of this witness is that the map of the scheme, which was received after approval of the Chief Town Planner and approved by UIT, is Exhibit-A-1/1. He deposes that it was received along with letter Exhibit-A-1/2 of Chief Town Planner, which mentions to be a garden and, therefore, the public park shown as O, P, Q, R in Exhibit-A-1/1, upon approval, vested in JDA. On perusal of the Map Exhibit-A-1/1, it contains description of workshop of Rajasthan State Roadways. The existing garden (land in dispute) shown in the map has not been described as the land surrendered for public park. In the map, stables and other constructions have also been described as "existing". It also describes "existing swimming pool". The main Kothi has been described as main building with platform on its either side. Grassing land has also been mentioned. If the evidence of the witness is read along with Exhibit-A/2 and Exhibit-A-1/1, it does not prove that the Map Exhibit-A-1/1 was submitted along with so called letter dated 01.01.1958. In the evidence, he further (35 of 49) [SAC-33/1997] deposed that Thakur Raj Singh had submitted letter on 01.01.1958 in Nagar Parishad and certified copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A-3/1. However, this witness does not depose that Map Exhibit-A-1/1 was submitted along with letter dated 01.01.1958 Exhibit-A-3/1. The letter mentions enclouser of copy of layout plan in duplicate. The two official witnesses of JDA have not stated that letter was submitted by Thakur Raj Singh in their presence. They have also not stated as to which plan was annexed along with letter dated 01.01.1958, but according to them Map/Layout plan Exhibit-A-1/1 was submitted by Thakur Raj Singh, but they are not clear whether that map was submitted long with letter dated 01.01.1958 or with letter dated 08.02.1960.

59. Hanuman Prasad, another defendant witness DW-3/B stated that as per the Map Exhibit-A-1/1, the land marked as O, P, Q, R was reserved for park and is in use by public. He deposed that he purchased his plot in 1960 or 1961 and when he had seen the map, the land marked as O, P, Q, R was described as park and Thakur Raj Singh stated that the same would be used for the residents of the colony. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the Plot No.S-20 was purchased by him. He stated that he was informed that the land of the park is behind his plot. Thus, none of the defendants' witnesses have proved that letter dated 01.01.1958 was submitted by Thakur Raj Singh in their presence or that they had seen Thakur Raj Singh having submitted the letter. Neither the official witnesses, nor other witnesses/purchasers of the plots have deposed that while submitting letter dated 01.01.1958, Exhibit-A1/1 was the Map/Layout plan, which was submitted by Thakur Raj Singh. The evidence of the witnesses also do not prove which was the Map/Layout plan which is said to be submitted along with letters dated 01.01.1958 or 08.02.1960. Both the documents contain a note that map was submitted. However, which map was submitted, is not clear. Letter dated 01.01.1958, on which heavy (39 of 49) [SAC-33/1997] reliance has been placed, while DW-1/B, Durga Shanker Purohit stated that Exhibit-A/2 bears the signatures of Thakur Raj Singh, none of the witnesses have proved the signatures of Thakur Raj Singh on letter dated 01.01.1958. DW-2/A Gordhan Sharma, defendant witness has filed certified copy of letter dated 01.01.1958. However, whether it was submitted by Thakur Raj Singh along with Map/Layout plan Exhibit-A1/1 has not been proved by this witness. It is oral evidence of Durga Shankar Purohit and Ratan Chand Bairagi that Map/Layout plan Exhibit- A1/1 was shown to them by Thakur Raj Singh at the time of purchase of plots by them. Both these witnesses have stated that they purchased plots in 1957. Thus, according to these witnesses, Map/Layout Plan Exhibit-A1/1 was in existence on the date when they purchased the pleadings in 1957 and on this basis, they are deposing that this was the map which was submitted by Thakur Raj Singh along with letter dated 01.01.1958.

60. Exhibit-A/4, letter dated 30.01.1959 stated to have been submitted by Thakur Raj Singh to the Land Acquisition Officer, mentions regarding areas left for roads, parks and area of 2.75 acres is shown to have been left for park. The date of sale of 74 plots is shown from October, 1957 to 19.01.1959. The letter also refers to a map attached along with it. However, which scheme was submitted along with this letter, has not been produced by the defendants.

61. Letter dated 15.09.1960 Exhibit-A14, which is stated to be submitted by Thakur Raj Singh on 10.09.1960 to the Secretary, The Government of Rajasthan, Local Self Department, Jaipur is regarding approval of Map/Layout plan of Chomu House Garden, (40 of 49) [SAC-33/1997] Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. At the top of the letter, date mentioned is 15.09.1960, whereas, at the bottom it contains the date as 10.09.1960. This refers to letter dated 08.02.1960 (described as agreement). In this letter, there is no reference to letter dated 01.01.1958, but only to agreement dated 09.02.1960. Exhibit-A/2 relied upon by the defendants is letter dated 08.02.1960. None of the defendants' witnesses have stated as to on which date this letter was submitted. The letter refers to letter dated 08.02.1960 addressed to Chairman, Urban Improvement Board, Jaipur. Letter dated 08.02.1960 Exhibit-A/2 does not refer to any park, but it refers to Layout plan annexed with letter dated 08.02.1960. Importantly, this letter does not refer to earlier letter dated 01.01.1958, nor to Map/Layout Plan along with letter dated 01.01.1958. Letter dated 15.09.1960, Exhibit-A/14, refers to Layout Plan submitted along with letter dated 08.02.1960 and not letter dated 01.01.1958. None of the defendants' witnesses have proved by placing on record that which Layout Plan was submitted with letter dated 08.02.1960.

62. From the evidence of the defendants' witnesses, defendants have sought to build up a case that Map/Layout Plan Exhibit-A1/1 was submitted along with letter dated 01.01.1958, which is wholly unexplained and rather misleading.

63. At this stage, it would be relevant to give details regarding acquisition of part of land belong to Thakur Raj Singh which formed part of Chomu Compund.

64. Learned Appellate Court has recorded a specific finding with regard to the acquisition of part of land comprising in Chomu Compound, which belonged to Thakur Raj Singh. The said finding, (41 of 49) [SAC-33/1997] based on oral and documentary evidence on record, has not been assailed. It has been recorded that the letter of UIT addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer reveals that initially, the State Government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act of 1953') on 22.03.1957 for acquisition of entire 33 acers of land, but later on while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 on 05.10.1957, only 28.53 acers of land was included which was published in the official Gazette by the State on 28.11.1957. From the award, it is revealed that 4.47 acres of land belonging to Thakur Raj Singh, in which his house and disputed land was situated, was excluded from acquisition. This culminated in an award given by the Land Acquisition Officer on 14.12.1961, which is clear from the judgment dated 31.01.1969 passed in reference case under Section 18 of the Act of 1953, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit-A26. The Map/Layout Plan Exhibit-A1/1 shows the acquired land also as workshop of Rajasthan State Roadways. The Layout plan which is said to be approved on 06.04.1961 included the land which was already proposed for acquisition, the land which was part of acquisition. Learned First Appellate Court has taken into consideration this aspect of the matter to record a finding that the plea and evidence of the defendants that this map was submitted by Thakur Raj Singh on 01.01.1958 along with letter dated 01.01.1958 is an act of misleading, as this map was not even in existence on that day. Therefore, plea and evidence of the defendants that Exhibit-A1/1 was the map, which was submitted for approval along with letter dated 01.01.1958 is an afterthought case of the defendants. This plan having shown the (42 of 49) [SAC-33/1997] land earmarked for workshop of Rajasthan State Roadways was prepared after acquisition only, at the stage of final acquisition of the land and not before that. On the other hand, the Map Exhibit- A-1 submitted by the plaintiffs while showing existing garden does not record any land proposed to be acquired. In this map, a land behind the residential part is shown as children park. In Map Exhibit-A1/1, land of acquisition has been shown as workshop of Rajasthan State Roadways. The oral evidence of the defendants' witnesses that the existing garden which belonged to Thakur Raj Singh was proposed to be surrendered by him, as shown in Exhibit-A1/1 is, therefore, fails, as this map was prepared long after at the time of acquisition of land and not even in existence on 01.01.1958. Evidence in this regard has been considered earlier also by us and learned First Appellate Court has also recorded empathetic finding in this regard that there is no evidence that Map Exhibit-A1/1 was submitted by Thakur Raj Singh on 01.01.1958, nor is there any evidence of the same having been approved. Moreover, the finding of the learned First Appellate Court that the Depot of Roadways, which was not constructed before 1960 leads to conclusion that the said map was not even prepared on 01.01.1958. Therefore, learned First Appellate Court had rightly recorded conclusion that Map Exhibit- A1/1 was not submitted by Thakur Raj Singh in Nagar Palika and it has been falsely stated that it was submitted on 01.01.1958.