Evidently, there is lot of correspondence between the parties and though some land was sought to be acquired initially, there was an offer by the plaintiff to give 30 feet extent of land for laying the road and the other 30 feet is to be provided by the 3rd defendant. It is evidently the burden of the plaintiff to show that the entire land was belonging to the plaintiff and the road was laid in the said property. Ex.A.1 is a deed of transfer executed by the plaintiff whereunder the plaintiff and 3rd defendant have transferred the land to the Government as a gift. It does not show that it was a conditional transfer offered by the plaintiff on payment of any compensation. The correspondence under Ex.B.2 also refers to the same. Added to that, under Ex.A.3, the plaintiff has informed to the 2nd defendant to provide 30 feet strip of land out of the 60 feet and the remaining shall be by the 3rd defendant. The only condition is the Government shall lay the land and maintain it. Ex.A.33-plan filed by the plaintiff clearly goes to show that the extent shown in red pencil was the land proposed to be surrendered as per Ex.B.1 letter. The plaintiff wants to canvass that the defendants have deviated from the plan. Evidently, the plaintiff has not objected when the road was laid and the plaintiff has also not filed any material evidence to show that there was deviation and that the total extent of land in which the road was laid exclusively belongs to the plaintiff. In view of the voluminous correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendants and the plaintiff having accepted to give the land at free of cost, cannot now contend that he is entitled for the compensation. The court below has considered all the documents and found that the right of the plaintiff is not established. I do not find any material to come to a different conclusion and that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.
