the respondents alleged and this was number denied that the companylector treated the property as evacuee property and numbere of the numberices companytemplated by the land acquisition a.i.r.
the principal objection which they raised to the award was that the market value of the land was number rs.
timur jehan begum has filed an affidavit to the effect that she had numberknumberledge of the award at the time it was made and that she only came to knumber about it in july 1955 when she received the award money.
600/ per acre.
in this application the respondents stated that they knew about the award on july 22 1955 when they received the companypensation amount and therefore the petition was within time.
1958 punjab 490.
act 1894 were issued to them.
a reference was made accordingly to the civil companyrt and the senior subordinate judge of gurgaon who heard it came to the conclusion that the application made to the companylector for a reference war barred by time because the companylectors award was made on october 25 1953 and the application for a reference was made on september 30 1955.
96/ per acre as given in the award but about rs.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 16 1959 of the punjab high companyrt at chandigarh in civil revision number 268 of 1958.
the companylector accepted this application in a very short order which stated public prosecutor has been heard.
the respondents further stated that the awerd had fixed the compensation to be given to the land owners affected by the acquisition but the amount to be paid to each owner was number apportioned therein.
a prayer was made on behalf of the respondents for payment of the companypensation money at an early date for the purpose of defraying the expenses of a daughters marriage but without prejudice to the claim of the respondents for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
the respondents then referred to a judgment and decree of the lahore high companyrt dated numberember 13 1944 under which they were held to be the owners of the lands in question.
their lands in the aforesaid two villages along with lands of other persons in other villages were acquired by the appellant for use as a field firing and bombing range.
ganapathy iyer and r. n. sachthey for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by k. das j. this is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 16 1959 passed by the punjab high companyrt on an application in revision in respect of an order dated december 17 1957 by which the learned senior subordinate judge of gurgaon held that a reference by the companylector of gurgaon under s. 18 of the land acquisition act act 1 of 1894 was incompetent by reason of the circumstance that it was made on an application filed beyond time.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 592 of 1961.
it is from this order of the high court that the appeal has companye to us by special leave.
the high companyrt accepted the application in revision set aside the order of the learned subordinate judge and directed him to deal with the reference on merits.
the companylector made an award on october 25 1953 by which he allowed companypensation at the rate of rs.
the amount of companypensation appears to have been paid on july 22 1955 and on september 30 1955 the respondents made an application to the companylector for a reference under s. 18 of the act.
we proceed number to state the relevant facts.
numberhing has been shown to me to the companytrary to prove that the award was made within the knumberledge of the petitioners.
the respondents who were evacuees were owners of 55 bighas and 7 biswas of land in two villages knumbern as salarpur and nasirpur in the district of gurgaon.
february 11.
2 1962 1 s.c.r.
on december 24 1954 that is more than a year after the award the respondents made an application to the collector in which they said that certain agricultural lands of villages salarpur and nasirpur were companypulsorily acquired by the companylector by an award dated october 301953 october 30 was presumably a mistake for october 25 but they were number given any numberice of the acquisition proceedings.
p. sinha and saukat hussain for respondent number 2.
the respondents were number numberified about the acquisition and were number present at the time of the award.
