227 on May 17, 1965 and in which stay had been granted and which stay was companytinued till the disposal of the applications filed under s. was actually withdrawn only on September 28, 1966 as having become infructuous.
15 of 1999 was decreed and the suit, No.
The former is the dam on which the State filed under s. 47 P.C. to the executability of the Land Acquisition Award, in view of the decree in Title Suit No.
On January 25, 1960, the suit filed by the second respondent, namely, T.SNo.
On the other hand,, the view of the High Court is.
34 of 1961.
34 of 1961.
After the issue of the numberice, the appellant, filed an additional affidavit on January 18, 1966 referring to the relevant provisions of the Legal Remembrancer Manual in West Bengal regarding the procedure to be followed by its Legal Officer in cases where appeals have to be filed.
227 of the Constitution west filed in the High Court on May 17, 1965 to quash the judgment of the Addl.
Appeals by special leave from the order dated August 18, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rules Nos.
1965 be taken up by the appropriate Bench for disposal.
Government Pleader and filed the three applications in question requesting the High Court to reconsider its previous order dated January 21, 1966 and to excuse the delay under s. 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the three appeals.
According to the appellant, the Department of Land Acquisition at Howrah did number known about the proceedings in Title Suit No.
It may be mentioned at this stage that the writ petitions filed under Art.
227 of the Constitution to quash the judgment of the Addl.
In the order it is stated that though the decrees, under appeal were passed as early as September 21, 1963, the appeals were filed along with the applications under s. 5 of the Limitation Act only on July 3, 1965 the interval being over one year and nine months.
All the above facts were set out in the applications for excusing the delay and praying that impartable loss and injury would be caused to the, State, if nearly 16,00,000 have to be paid to persons who have been held to be in wrongful possession of the land and against whom a decree in Title Suit No.
The High Court, on June 3, 1966 issued numberice to the respon dents.
After hearing the respondents, the High Court assesed by the companymon order in question on August 18, 1966 dismissing the applications filed by the appellant for excusing the delay under s. 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the three appeals.
It was on March 4, 1965, that it was discovered that the judgment of the Additional District Judge in the three Land Acquisition References had number been appealed against.
As the reasons for the appeals number being filed, were number clear, they were investigated by the Legal Adviser of the State.
227 of Constitution on May 17.,
On January 21, 1966, the High Court passed the following order On the present materials before us we are number satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to explain the delay of over a year and a half in filing of the companynected appeals.
On the same day the learned Judges while declining to issue a Rule, however, granted stay of execution of the Award for one mouth with a direction that appeals should be filed with proper applications against the Award in Miscellaneous Cases Nos.
On or about April 15, 1965, the State Lawyer in the High Court advised the State to move the High Court under Art.
It was further submitted that in view of the various matters mentioned in the applications filed under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, sufficient cause has been shown for excusing the delay in filing the appeals.
34 of 1961.
The appeals on being returned by the High Court Office on July 5, 1965 with the endorsement that the is a delay of one year seven months and twenty two days, were represented on July 7, 1965 with the necessary, applications under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
These applications must fail for the 1 unexplained delay between the two dates, August 27, 1964 and July 3, 1965.
The second respondent on the basis of the Award, levied exe cution and the appellant filed objection on August 27, 1964 under s. 47 C.P.C. on the ground that the Award is number executable in view of the decree in Title Suit No.
Three appeals against the three Land Acquisition References Nos.
the appellant.
34 of 1961 for eviction had been passed on July 21,1961.
882 of 1968 .
Jagadish Swarup Solicitor General of India, P. Chatterjee and P. K. Chakravarti, for the appellant in all the appeals .
Ultimately, the High Court in its brief order is of the view that the State has number sufficiently explained the delay during the period August 27, 1964 and July 3, 1965.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Later on, the appellant received a reply dated January 29, 1966 from their Ex.
Ultimately, the learned Judges dismissed the application for excusing the delay There is a further direction given by the High Court that the writ petitions filed by the appellant under Art.
The circumstances leading up to the order of the High Court may be stated About 41 bighas of land situated in Salkia it Howrah were acquired by the Government of West Bengal for the purpose of utilising the same as market place at Howrah.
3 and 4 have taken a sub lease from the second respondent of the said area.
does number put it against the appellant and in fact it does number seem to give much importance to that period.
The learned Judges granted further two weeks time on June 17, 1965 and also extended the period of stay by two weeks.
The State also referred to the letters written by the Collector of Howrah on December 18,1965 and January 5, 1966 to the Advocate, who was at the material time Government Pleader asking for his explanation as to why the Government was number advised by him regarding the filing of appeals against the Land Acquisition References.
N. Mukherjee and G. K. Deb, for respondents Nos.
34 of 1961 as the latter related to another Department of the Government.
The High Court on July 7, 1965 issued numberice to the respon dents to show cause why the delay should number be companydoned and the appeals taken on file.
1827 F to 1829 F of 1966.
21 and 40 of 1958 and 13 of 1959 were filed in the,High Court on July 3, 1965.
21 40 of 1958 and 13 of 1959 within a month.
821 of 1968.
In this judgment we are referring the ranks of the.parties AS in Civil Appeal No.
After, the acquisition, the entire land was placed at the disposal of the first respondent the Municipality, Howrah, on th e specific companydition that the said land was to be used for establishing a public market and that it would number be used for any other purpose without the permission of the Government.
It is, claimed by,the appellant that T. S. No.
10 of 1959 filed by the Municipality was dismissed.
821 to 823 of 1968.
34 of 1961 for possession of 4 1 bighas was decreed,.on July 21, 196 1.
According to the appellant them was also an agreement that the land would be resumed in the event of a public market number being established within a reasonable time.
District Judge in the Land Acquisition References.
A further order was passed on July 1, 1965 to obtain the necessary orders of stay regarding the execution of the Award from the appropriate Beach dealing with the appeals.
When the objections filed regarding the executability of the Award were rejected, the matter was referred to the Legal Remembrancer, West Bengal, for taking necessary action.
821, and 823 of 1968 and the respondents in C.A. No.
Mookherjee and S. C. Majumdar, for respondent No.
District Judge dated June 27, 1963 in the three Land Acquisition References, as the time for filing appeals had expired.
2 to 4 in C.As.
Accordingly writ petitions under Art.
The second respondent had taken a lease of about 21 bighas 9 kotas of land from the first respondent and respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidiyalingam, J. These three appeals, by special leave, are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated August 18, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court dismissing Civil Rule Nos 827 F to 829 F of 1966, which were applications filed by the appellant under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to excuse the delay in filing three appeals against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Howrah, dated June 27, 1963, in three Land Acquisition Reference Cases.
Thee first respondent is the Howrah Municipality.
821 and 823 of 1968 .
1 in As.
