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.) The notes he had made, which extend over ten typewritten foolscap pages, are divided into thirty-three paragraphs. Two instances will suffice to show their character. Paragraph 6 is as follows: We then saw Survey Nos. 532 and 533. The condition of the superstructures on these survey numbers is shabby. The estimate of the future life as made by the Land Acquisition Officer is quite correct. And paragraph 27 is as follows: The statement made by the expert that the situation of Survey No. 522 is Superior to that of Survey No. 460 was also examined during this inspection. I have already observed that the busiest centre of shopping activity of the Ratanpole road ends at the police chowky situated to the south of the entrance to Nagorishala. On an inspection of the whole locality, I am not at all prepared to accept this statement of the expert. In my opinion Survey No. 522 is certainly not superior to Survey No. 460, but that it ought to be inferior to Survey No. 460.