JUDGMENT 1. - This is a first appeal against the judgement and decree passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, partly decreeing the plaintiff's suit for compensation. 2. The plaintiff-appellant is the owner of a property popularly known as 'Diggi House' and his land extends in the North to Bal Mandir and in the East to Ramdwara. The people living in Ramdwara. used to go through an open piece of land between Maharani's College and Bal Mandir. This way was closed after the construction of Maharani's College Hostel and with a view to provide an alternative way to the people living in Ramdwara, the Government of Rajasthan decided to provide a way through Diggi House belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore, the Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Land Acquisition Act', on 23-6-1959 (Ex. 6). Vide Exhibit-7, dated 16.7.59 the Land Acquisition Officer wrote to the Supdtg. Engineer (B&R), Jaipur Circle, Jaipur stating that 'Narain Singh of Diggi had agreed to allow the Public Works Department to construct the proposed road on his assurance that the compensation according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act will be paid to him. Estimat s of the wall which will he dismantled may also kindly be sent within a week and area under the road may also be intimated so that compensation may be assessed accordingly'. On this document, Narain Singh plaintiff has also signed expressing his consent. A notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued on 5.8.1959 and thereafter, another notification u/s 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued by which objections were invited till 28.8.1959. Since the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B&R) intimated that the land was not required by the Public Works Department, the Government of Rajasthan by its notification dated 14.10.59 de-acquired the property, as would be evident by Exhibit 13 letter dated 3.2.60, from the Land Acquisition Officer to the plaintiff According to the plaintiff, possession of the land was taken by the Government and the eastern boundary wall of the plaintiff was demolished and a way was opened for the use of the people living in Ramdwara. Meanwhile, the plaintiff on his own request was allowed to sub-divide his land into several smaller plots and he proposed to construct the road for the benefit of those plot holders and therefore, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department informed the Mahant of Ramdwara that the persons living in Ramdwara could also use the road which the plaintiff proposed to construct. A copy of this letter dated 22.3.60 was also sent to the plaintiff, to which the plaintiff replied on 2.4.1950 that he will not allow others to use his road. It is alleged that on 15.2.1962, the Public Works Department again demolished the eastern boundary wall of Diggi House and constructed a road from Ramdwara Mahaveer Marg and in this way, the Public Works Department encroached the land of the plaintiff measuring 168' x 10' and the plaintiff therefore, claimed that the price of the land acquired was Rs. 47,000/- at the rate of rs 28/- per Square Yard, but he claimed only Rs. 25,000/-. 3. The State of Rajasthan contested the suit and admitted that the notifications under Land Acquisition Act were issued but since the plaintiff was allowed to sub-divide his land into smaller plots, the plaintiff himself wanted to construct the road which could be utilised by the people of Ramdwara as well and therefore, there was no necessity of constructing a separate road for the people of Ramdwara and the plaintiff had sold the plots on both the sides of this road and the main doors of' the houses constructed on those plots sold by the plaintiff were also towards this road. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff's land was agricultural in nature and the Government allowed it to be converted into Abadi land on the clear understanding that the road constructed by the plaintiff will be a public road and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled for any compensation or damages and the suit should have been dismissed. 4. Learned trial court after framing issues and recording evidence has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation and damages as claimed by him but only to the extent of Rs. 2500/-. It is against this judgement and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City that the present appeal has been filed. 5. 4. Learned trial court after framing issues and recording evidence has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation and damages as claimed by him but only to the extent of Rs. 2500/-. It is against this judgement and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City that the present appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the judgement of the learned trial court is not in accordance with law and that the market price of the disputed land ought to have been calculated between Rs. 8/- to Rs. 11/- per square yard and the amount awarded is very meagre. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on (1) Municipal Committee v. Ratan Lal Ganusao Kalar (AIR 1938 Nagpur 169) for the proposition that the civil court had no jurisdiction to award compensation under section 48 (2). He has further placed reliance on (2) M/s. Jethmal Bhojraj and another v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1975 Patna 339) and has submitted that since possession of the land was not taken by the Government under section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. the Government was justified in de-acquiring the land under section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. He has also placed reliance on (3) Trustees of Bai Samrath Jain Shvetambar Murtipiyak Cyanoddhaya Trust and others v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1981 Gujarat 107). 7. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgement as well as the record of the suit. It is not disputed that the Government intended to acquire some land of the plaintiff for public purpose i.e. private way for the residents of Ramdwara and in that connection. Government had issued notification under section 4, under section 6 and also under section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act but the plaintiff has not been able to produce any notification under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act or any evidence to show that the possession of the land of the plaintiff was taken over by the government. Government had issued notification under section 4, under section 6 and also under section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act but the plaintiff has not been able to produce any notification under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act or any evidence to show that the possession of the land of the plaintiff was taken over by the government. It is also admitted that mean while the plaintiff had approached the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur for making sub-division of his land and bifurcating into small plots for residential purposes and the permission was granted to the plaintiff and in fact, he sub-divided his land and sold the plots of land to the different persons and they have constructed residential houses which have their main gates/doors opening on this road. The then Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur has taken the plea that the permission for sub-division of land was granted to the plaintiff with a clear understanding that the road which the plaintiff proposed to construct for use of the persons to whom he will sell his small plots, would also be utilised for the residents of Ramdwara and therefore, no separate road was necessary to be constructed for the residents of Ramdwara, by the government. It is also not denied that the Government de-acquired the land by notification dated 14.10.1959 and since there is no clinching and reliable evidence that the State Government had taken possession of the lard, the State Government was fully competent and justified in issuing notification under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. de-acquiring the property of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge has placed reliance on the statement of Shri K.C. Gupta (PW-4) who has stated in his cross-examination that he had taken possession of the land meant for road and that he handed over the possession of the same to the Public Works Department. I have carefully gone through the statement of Shri K.C. Gupta (PW-4) but I am not inclined to rely his evidence for coming to the conclusion that possession was taken over by the Government because certain procedure has been prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act for taking possession of land which is acquired by the Government. I have carefully gone through the statement of Shri K.C. Gupta (PW-4) but I am not inclined to rely his evidence for coming to the conclusion that possession was taken over by the Government because certain procedure has been prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act for taking possession of land which is acquired by the Government. No evidence has been produced or sought to be relied that any such step was taken, as is envisaged b) the Land Acquisition Act A bald statement of PW-4 K.C. Gupta is of no avail in such circumstances. specially because the road was to be constructed by the plaintiff for the use of those persons to whom he was going to sell the small plots for making residential houses on his land alter the sub-division was allowed by the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur. 8. I am of the view that this appeal has no force and deserves be dismissed. My view is supported by the decisions of the Patna and Gujarat High Courts relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. I may also mention here that the State of Rajasthan have filed cross- objections that the Additional District Judge should not have awarded a sum of Rs. 2500/- to the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge after considering the evidence led by the parties has observed that the price of the disputed land if it is calculated on the basis of price of Abadi land, will be between somewhere Rs. 8/- to Rs. 11/- per square yard. He has further observed that since the land of the plaintiff was admittedly an agricultural land, price of Abadi land could not be applied and the plaintiff has led no evidence about the price of the agricultural land. Relying on the admission of the defendant in written statement that the value of the disputed land is Rs. 2500/-, he has awarded a sum of Rs. 2500/- as a fair compensation to the plaintiff. Since I have come to the finding that the possession of the land was not taken by the Government, there is no question of awarding any compensation to the plaintiff. Therefore, cross objections of the State are allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and the cross objections of the State Govt. are allowed without any order as to cost.Appeal Dismissed & Cross Objections Allowed. *******