KESHAV PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, dated the 11th of September, 1957 are being assailed before us both by the plaintiff and the defendant by their respective appeals Nos. 6 of 1958 and 15 of 1958. By this judgment the learned District Judge partly decreed the plaintiff's suit for a sum of rs. 4,340 as price of his two plots of land taken over by the covenanting State of bikaner; Rs. 1,000 as damages for his mental worries and Rs. 500 for incidental expenses; the total amounting to Rs. 5,840 against the defendant State, the suit having been dismissed against the other defendant, namely, the Union of India.

(2.) THE facts leading upto this appeal, in so far as they are admitted between the parties or have been held to be proved satisfactorily, may be briefly set out as follows :

(3.) THE plaintiff was the owner of the two plots of land in dispute situate on the gajner road near the Orphanage in the city of Bikaner having purchased the same from the said State some time in 1941 at the rate of 0-2-0 annas per, what is called the Malimandi sq. Gaj in force in that State, that is. 2' X 2' On the 16th or 17th of May 1946, the Bikaner State Government took possession of these plots without the consent of the plaintiff avowedly in order to re-design these and some other plots which fell to be covered by or under the Amarsinghpura Scheme. The plots in question measuring 8680 malmandi sq. yards, which were originally nos. 1 and 2 in the scheme were considered upon along with some other land in its close vicinity and were later known as Bungalow No. 27 which thus came under the possession of the then Maharaja of that State His Highness Shri Sadul Singhji and on his death in 1950 was inherited by his son His Highness Maharaja Shri kami Singhji. The plaintiff felt aggrieved by the manner in which he was arbitrarily deprived of the possession and ownership of his plots, and so, on the 23rd of May, 1946 sent a telegram to His Highness the Maharaja of Bikaner (Ex. 2) protesting against the unlawful assumption of possession of the said plots and the construction which was being raised on them. By his letter (Ex. 3) dated the 28th of May, 1946, the Private Secretary to His highness informed the plaintiff that whatever was being done on his plots was being carried out "under proper authority and orders. " The plaintiff was, however, assured that "you should have no fear and either another piece of land of approximately the same size will be shown to you nearby or compensation paid as may be decided in regard to the various plots sold in that area. " It was also mentioned in this letter that the step taken with respect to his plots had been