1985 (5) TMI 249 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the valuation report by D.N. Gupta should be treated as an admission u/s 20 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment of interest on the amount payable as the value of the property taken by the State Government.

Summary:

Issue 1: Valuation Report as Admission u/s 20 of the Evidence Act
The main question was whether the valuation report by D.N. Gupta, dated February 21, 1956, valuing the disputed land at Rs. 35,826.50p, should be treated as an admission u/s 20 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court examined whether the parties had mutually agreed to appoint D.N. Gupta as an appraiser or valuer and whether his valuation should be binding. The Court found no evidence that the State Government agreed to be bound by Gupta's valuation. The testimony of Shah Alimuddin, Deputy Minister for Local Self Government, indicated that no commitment was made on behalf of the State Government to accept the valuation as binding. The Court concluded that the valuation report could not be treated as an admission under s. 20 of the Evidence Act, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages based on this valuation was not upheld.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Interest
The Court recognized that the plaintiff was deprived of property and was entitled to compensation. The value of the exchanged plot was determined based on the rates prescribed by the State Government for Improvement Trust plots in C Scheme, which was Rs. 3.50 per square yard, amounting to Rs. 17,500. However, considering the rise in land prices and other factors, the Court awarded the plaintiff Rs. 25,000 as compensation. Additionally, the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the compensation amount. Following the precedent set in Satinder Singh v. Amrao Singh, the Court awarded interest at 6% per annum from the date of dispossession (August 13, 1951) until the date of the Subordinate Judge's judgment (August 31, 1959), and thereafter at 9% per annum until realization.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the judgment and decree of the High Court and the learned Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff's claim for compensation was decreed at Rs. 25,000 with interest as specified. The appellant was entitled to recover costs in proportion to success and failure. Appeal allowed.