KAJORI LAL AGARWAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 17-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• • 
• 
• 
+-, 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KAJORI LAL AGARWAL 
v . 
.lJNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
December 17, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.) 
West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act (2 of 
1948), 
s. 8(2)-Applicatlon for reference 'to Co"rt-Period of limitation whe-
ther prescribed . 
The appellant's lands were acquired under the provisions of the West 
Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The Land Ac-
quisition Officer made an award on 5th February 1951. The appellant 
accepted the compensation amount on 21st March 
1951, under protest, 
and on 2nd February 1953, filed an application under s. 8 of the Act 
that a reference should be made to the Court regarding his claim for a 
larger amount of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected 
the application on the &:ound that it was 
barred by time. The High 
Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, remanded the case to the Land Acqui-
sition Officer for disposal according to law, with tho observation 
that, 
though no limitation had been prescribed for making an application for 
reference, such an application should 
nevertheless be 
made within a 
reasonable time and that whether the appellant moved within a reason-
able time or not should be determined. The Land Acquisition Officer 
held that the appellant did not move within a reasonable time and reject-
ed the application, and the High Court 
rdused to interfere with the 
order. 
In ap%al to this Court. 
lIELD: Section 8(2) of the West Bengal Act, read with •· 18(2) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically prescribes 
the 
period 
of 
limitation for making such applications, and having regard to these pro-
visions, the appellant's application dated 2nd February 1953 WU t>aTm! 
by time. It was therefore not necessary to consider the appellant's plea 
that the application was made within a reasonable time. [148 B-C] 
The fact that s. 8(1) of the West Bengal Act imposes an obligation 
on the Collector to refer the mattelf to the decision of tht Court does 
not preclude the application of a provision for limitation prescribed in 
regard to the making of an application for reference. 
Section 8(2) of 
the West Bengal Act makes the provisions of the Central Act applicable 
mutatis mutandis in respect of any reference made to the court under 
sub-s. ( l). In the context, the1 clause "in respect of any reference made 
to the Court" does not mean that the provisions of the Central Act have 
to apply only after a reference is made, but it includes all cases where 
reference is intended, or proposed, or asked, to be made; and that means 
that if a party wants to make an application for reference, he is no doubt 
entitled to require the Collector to make such a reference, but his appli· 
cation in that behalf must be made within the period of limitation pres-
cribed by s. 18(2) of the Central Act. Fu·rther, the amended s. 8(2) of 
the West Bengal Act, which makes s. 18(2) of the, Central Act expressly 
applicable, also uses the same clause "in respect of any reference made 
to the Court an.cl that also lends support to this view. [144 G; 146 F; 
147 G-Hl 
142 
SUPREME COURT 
11!\POll.TS 
[1966] 3 S.C.R. 
Kajori I.ul Agarwal Y. Ille Union of lndin. 59 C.\V.~. 936., overruled. 
A 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURlsDrcnos : Civil Appeal No. 666 of 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dateo 
July 6, 1959 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Ruic No. 3886 
ci1956. 
a 
3. 
Anoop Singh, for the appellant. 
D. N. Mukherjee and R. N. Sachthey. for respondent No. I. 
P. K. Chatterjee and/'. K. /Jose, for respondents Nos. 2 and 
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. 110 and Mouza Kholai Singh J. L. No. 112 in 
Siliguri Town in the district of Darjeeling. The said lands were 
acquired by the Union of India, and the State of West Bengal, 
respondents I & 2 respectively, under the relevant provisions of 
c 
D 
the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 
(No. 2 of 1948) (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the Assam 
Rail Link Project. 
Respondent No. 3 is the Land Acquisition 
Officer, Darjeeling. 
Jn those proceedings, the appellant claimed 
Ii: 
compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 100 per cottah amounting to 
Rs. 2,27,100. He also put in a claim for Rs. 8,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.