STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HORMUSJI DINSHAW DAVIERWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship, after dealing with issues not relevant for the purposes of this report, continued.] Now the claimant has examined five persons including himself. In his deposition the claimant claimed to be the owner of the dam and .gave its history. According to him the dam was built in or about 1938 by his father, after taking possession of the site on February 8, 1938. It was only after the dam was constructed, to the satisfaction of the Collector the Government wrote a letter to the father of the claimant to execute an agreement and then the above agreement dated January 10, 1939 was executed. The claimant was paying the rent of 11 annas 3 pies for the space per year. His father had spent for the construction of the bridge. His father also spent for the repairs and maintenance of the dam which was meant exclusively for his family and family members, with whose permission, the other members of the village were using it. The neighbouring landlords were using it with his permission.

(2.) THERE was a gate to the bridge towards the village Vankas. If any one of them wanted to take the cart across the bridge they did so with the permission of the claimant's manager who refused the permission! if a cart load was heavy. He also said that the dam was used for the storage of the water which was useful for irrigation in the claimant's garden and irrigated land. He said that the water was used for irrigation with the help of pumps run by oil engine till 1960, when the Government acquired the lands.

(3.) MR . Pratap contended that even the evidence of Mr. Bodhe was not sufficient to justify the compensation of Rs. 40,000 and the learned Judge had not discussed his evidence in the course of his judgment, particularly when Bodhe was cross -examined on the point; and all that he stated was at page 30 as follows: There was the Government contractor to do something, for the bridge. He had the rates of work. I took them down. I took the difference but the rates of 1961 to 1967. I got the valuation of 1961. I have the rates in my file. I verified the rates of contractor. I cannot tell who was the contractor. I took the rates from him. I reduced the rates by 13/16 per cent, to get the valuation of 1961. I have experience about the valuation of 1961. The calculation made by me is not brought by me in the court today.