AMRATLAL Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree with the judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother Divatia. But in deference to the very full arguments that have been advanced by counsel. I desire to refer to two features of this appeal about which there has been much discussion.

(2.) IN the first place, the learned Judge in the Court below proceeded on March 13 and 14, 1940, to view the property and the locality in question. This was done after the parties had closed their evidence, and apparently after the final speeches of the pleaders had been delivered. Some of the pleaders accompanied the learned Judge on this expedition. IN the case of the appellants they were represented by their manager who also accompanied the Judge. The Judge made extensive notes of what he saw. IN that state of affairs the learned Judge on April 29, 1940, delivered his judgment.

(3.) BUT, in my judgment, an inspection such as took place in this case can only proceed on the basis that it was made with the consent of the parties, in order that the Judge might determine and decide finally points of conflict on questions of fact appearing in the evidence already given before him. It is most significant that the evidence was closed and that there was no further argument upon it by the pleaders. There is no material before us to show that the learned Judge was wrong in any of his findings of fact, and in view of the course which these proceedings have taken and the consent of the parties to it, which even if it was not express must certainly be implied : it is not competent, in my judgment, for either party in this appeal to controvert or to appeal against any of the learned Judge's findings of fact.