SHAMBHU DUTT SHASTRI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was also listed before this Court yesterday i.e. on 9th April, 1985, for final hearing. Mr. Ajit Bhandari, a panel lawyer, appeared before this court and submitted that he is not prepared to argue the case as the file of the case has been handed over to him only in the morning. Hearing was adjourned. Today, Mr. K.N. Garg, appearing on behalf of the State, looking to the nature of the case, rushed and approached Mr. M.I. Khan, Government Advocate, to give him assistance. Mr. M.I. Khan, who is an eminent lawyer, assisted the Court in the right earnestness. He rushsed to the Court after the completion of the arguments of Mr. Lodha, counsel for the appellant. Generally, there is a dearth of good lawyers in the Government Advocate office and the Courts are not getting proper assistance, Mr. M.I. Khan, submitted that he was on the legs in other court. He further submitted that M/s S.B. Mathur, Additional Government Advocate, O.P. Sharma and Ajit Bhandari are not present in the court and for this reason the case has been handed over to Mr. Garg when a panel lawyer is in fact, within a short space of time Mr. Khan, prepared the case and assisted the court to the utmost satisfaction and raised number of technical pleas. I think it proper to express my appreciation for Mr. Khan and would like that in future at least he should see that proper assistance is given by his colleagues to the court and the cases of the State Government do not go in default for not putting the case properly.

(2.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed dated 13th November, 1972, passed by the learned District Judge, Alwar, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff -appellant. The plaintiff -appellant has filed a suit against the State of Rajasthan for compensation for the use and occupation of the disputed property. It is an admitted position that the final inventory of the property of His Highness of Alwar was prepared. Ex. A/5 relates to the disputed property. Under the covenant the disputed property was considered as private property with some conditions. The relevant portion runs as under:

(3.) ON behalf of the State, written statement was filed and thereafter the Court considering the pleadings framed the following issues on 13th September, 1971: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........