600 per acre.
On the 10th September, 1956 respondent No.
On that view, the High Court left it to respondent No.
100 per companytah amounting to Rs.
In those proceedings, the appellant claimed companypensation at a flat rate of Rs.
The appellant challenged the validity of this order by moving the Calcutta High Court in its revisional jurisdiction Civil Revision Case No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 6, 1959 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.
227 of the Constitution read with s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Civil Rule No.
1 of 1894 hereinafter called the Central Act .
3 was grossly inadequate.
22,074 to the appellant in lieu of his lands at the rate of Rs.
On the 6th July, 1959, this case was heard by a Division Bench of the said High Court and the application made by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the High Court saw numberreason to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.
8,000 on account of the severance and other grounds.
On the 21st March, 1951, the appellant accepted the said amount as companypensation money under protest.
666 of 1963.
3 to companysider whether the appellant had moved for reference within a reasonable time vide Kajori Lal Agarwal v. The Union of India Ors.
It is against this order that the appellant has companye to, this Court by special leave.
After the appellants application was thus remanded to respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This order was challenged by the appellant again by moving the Calcutta High Court under Art.
The appellant alleged in his application that having regard to the market value of the land at the relevant time, the amount awarded to him by respondent No.
3 rejected the appellants application for reference on the ground that it was barred by time.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an application before respondent No.
On the 16th June, 1955, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed the appellants revisional application and sent the case to respondent No.
N. Mukherjee and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
After the award was pronounced, a numberice was served on the appellant under s. 12 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 No.
Respondent No.
3886 of 1956 .
3, he filed an affidavit on the 27th August, 1956 and explained in detail the reasons for the delay made by him in filing his application for reference.
K. Chatterjee and P. K. Bose, for respondents Nos.
Anoop Singh, for the appellant.
3 is the Land Acquisition Officer, Darjeeling.
112 in Siliguri Town in the district of Darjeeling.
3 on the 2nd February, 1953 and claimed that a reference should be made by him to the Court for decision of his claim for a larger amount of companypensation under s. 8 of the Act.
110 and Mouza Kholai Singh J. L. No.
3886 of 1956.
676 of 1954 .
Respondent No.
Respondent No.
3 made an award under s. 7 of the Act on the 5th February, 1951 directing the payment of Rs.
In remitting the case to respondent No.
3 rejected the appellants application on the ground that he had neglected to move for reference within a reasonable time.
The said lands were acquired by the Union of India, and the State of West Bengal, respondents 1 2 respectively, under the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 No 2 of 1948 hereinafter called the Act for the Assam Rail Link Project.
2 and 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The appellant Kajori Lal Agarwal was the owner in khas of 37.85 acres of land in Mouza Shibnath Das J. L. No.
2,27,100.
He also put in a claim for Rs.
