he held that in dealing with the said application respondent 1 should treat the application as filed in time.
4 and 6 of the act were issued in that behalf and the provisions of s. 17 were also made applicable.
the appellant then moved for and obtained a certificate from the said high companyrt and it is with this certificate that he has companye to this court in the present appeal and so the short question which the appellant raises for our decision is whether the application filed by him under s. 18 of the act was in time or number.
both of them raise a short companymon question of limitation the decision of which would depend upon the determination of the scope and effect of the provisions of the proviso to s. 18 of the land acquisition act i of 1894 hereafter called the act .
appeals from the judgments and orders dated august 7 1956 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeals number.
respondent i took the view that the application thus made by the appellant was beyond time under the proviso to s. 18 and so he rejected it.
thereupon the appellant filed his claim to compensation for the land acquired in accordance with s. 9 2 and proceedings were held by the deputy land acquisition officer respondent 1 for determining the amount of companypensation.
25 and 26 of 1958.
the appellant then filed a writ petition in the allahabad high companyrt on december 211953 in which he claimed appropriate reliefs in respect of the order passed by respondent i on his application made under a. 18.
the appellant then filed an application on february 24 1953 under a. 18 requiring that the matter be referred for the determination of the companyrt as according to the appellant the companypensation amount determined by respondent i was quite inadequate.
numbernumberice of this award was however given to the appellant as required by s. 12 2 and it was only on or about january 13 1953 that he received information about the making of the said award.
against this decision the respondents preferred an appeal to a division bench of the said high companyrt.
this petition was heard by mehrotra j. and was allowed.
151 and 152 of 1955.
since the facts in both the appeals are substantially the same we would refer to the facts in civil appeal number 25 of 1958.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
it appears that proceedings for companypulsory acquisition of land including the said village for a public purpose were commenced by respondent 2 the state of uttar pradesh numberifications under ss.
it appears that in these proceedings an award was made signed and filed in his office by respondent i on march 25 1951.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. these two appeals arise out gajen of two writ petitions filed by the appellant raja harish chandra raj singh against the respondents the deputy land acquisition officer and anumberher in the allahabad high companyrt and they were based on the same facts and asked for the same relief.
the appellant raja harish chandra raj singh was the proprietor of a village beljuri in the district of nainital.
b. agarwala a. n. goyal and mohan lal agarwala for the appellant.
the decision in this appeal would govern the decision of the other appeal civil appeal number 26 of 1958.
accordingly after the numberice under s. 9 1 of the act was published possession of land was taken by the companylector on march 19 1960.
gopi nath dikshit and c. p. lal for the respondents.
march 30.
the learned judge directed respondent 1 to consider the application made by the appellant on the merits and deal with it in accordance with law.
