Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. by the State of Punjab against the decision of the District Judge, Hissar, dated 31st August, 1956, enhancing on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the compensation awarded by the Collector to the Respondents. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 85/ - per biswa. On reference to the District judge the compensation was raised to Rs. 125/ - per biswa. The claim of the Respondents is that they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per biswa. On the other hand, it is maintained by the learned Additional Advocate -General that the amount awarded by the Collector is the fair compensation for the land which has been acquired. The land is situate in the municipal limits of Dhabwali Mandi in the district of Hissar. It is common ground that it is in the close proximity of the Mandi and it is part of Khasra No. 22. Khasra No. 22 embraces a very large area and there have been a number of sales out of this Khasra number, some before the date of acquisition and some after the date of acquisition. The notification under Section 4 acquiring the land was published on 21st May, 1955, and according to the State the possession was taken on the 20th December, 1954, whereas according to the Respondents the possession was taken in November, 1954. Before the District Judge a claim was made to compensation for certain kacha structures and trees on the land but he found that there were no trees on the land and there were no structures as alleged and on that ground he disallowed the claim both to the trees and the structures.
(2.) IN the present appeal, the contention of the Additional Advocate General is that there is no justification for the enhancement of compensation from Rs. 85/ - to Rs. 125/ - per biswa whereas in cross -objections filed by the Respondents claim has been made for compensation for trees and the alleged kacha structures and in addition to this it is maintained that the compensation awarded by the District Judge is inadequate and that they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per biswa. Before we enter upon the discussion on the merits of the matter, it will be proper to mention the objection of the Additional Advocate General based on the provisions of Sections 9 and 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. The objection is to the effect that as no claim was made by the claimants under Section 9 before the Collector they are not entitled to any enhancement over and above the coinpensation awarded by the Collector. It will be proper at this stage to set out both of the relevant provisions on which the objection is based. They are: - 9.(1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interest in such land may be made to him. (2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all parsons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the data of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under Section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate. (4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and registered under Part III of the Indian Post Office Act, 1886. "25. (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. (2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. (3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector. Before dealing with the objection on the basis of Section 25 of the Act, it will be proper to set out what actually transpired before the District Judge. It is a fact that no claim was made by the claimants before the Collector. However, in the application dated 9th September, 1955 under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector made by the Respondents for reference after the award had been made on 20th June, 1955, the following allegations are made in paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7: - The applicants did not receive any oTher notice or information from The Government or P. W. D. in this connection nor did They receive any notice under Section 9 of The said Act to submit Their claim:
(3.) THROUGH your letter No. 6746 dated the 30th August, 1955, received by the applicants on 1st September, 1955, in response to their application an award regarding the compensation of the said land under which Rs. 2,492/10/3 have been given to each of the applicants as compensation ; 6 the contents of your above referred letter No. 6746, dated the 30th August, 1955, are not admitted by the Petitioners. The Petitioners were out of Dabhwali Mandi from 12th June, 1955, to 22nd June, 1955, and they can produce very reliable evidence in support of this fact. Out of this period they were at Hardwar from 18th June, 1955, to 21st June, 1955, in connection with the Suraj Grahan Mela. It is entirely wrong that any notice under Section 9 was served on the Petitioners or any intimation regarding the award was given to them in Dabhwali Mandi on 20th June, 1955, and they did not appear before you intentionally. In fact the Petitioners were at Hardwar on 20th June, 1955 ; 7. the Petitioners have for the first time learnt about the award on 1st September, 1955, from your letter No. 6746, dated the 30th August, 1955, and prior to that they had no knowledge about it. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the matter be referred to the Court of the District Judge for the determination of the compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 as the award is not acceptable to the Petitioners. In the written statement filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, it is stated that a notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to the Respondents As they were not available in their village, these were pasted at the spot and public place and outside the Collector's Office as required by law. The publicity was made in the area concerned by beat of drum asking for claims under Section 9 However, it became unnecessary to determine the question whether the notice under Section 9 had or had not been served on the Respondents in view of the statement of the Respondents' counsel Shri Manphul Singh dated the 17th April, 1956, which is in these terms: - I give up the allegation in the petition regarding the non -service of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act on the Petitioners. I now claim only compensation for the land measurine 2 Bighas and 10 Biswas (kham), the tree and the structures on the land. There were six trees on the land in dispute of the Petitioners. As regards the structures, I claim compensation for a kacha room which existed on the land in dispute on the date of acquisition. I cannot give the dimensions of the kacha kotha that existed on the land. Now there is no such kacha kotha. It was removed by the State or its servants on its behalf. Five of the trees have also been removed only one of them still exists. The Government Pleader made the following statement on that very date: - Only the land of the Petitioners measuring 2 Bighas 10 Biswas (kham) has been acquired. There were no trees or structures on the land in dispute on the date of acquisition and none exists even today. None of the trees has been removed or the structures demolished. The compensation offered by the Collector for the land in dispute is adequate. Thereafter the District Judge proceeded to determine the claim as to compensation and, as already stated, came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate and he accordingly enhanced it. The present appeal is by the State. 3. The first question that falls for determination is whether in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 25(2) the Respondents are at all entitled to the enhancement claimed by them. The resume of facts already stated leaves no manner of doubt that the notice under Section 9 must be assumed to have been served particularly in view of the statement of Shri Manphul Singh counsel for the Respondents. The fact that the notice was served coupled with the further fact that no claim was filed by the Respondents before the Collector, debarred the District Judge from enhancing the claim of the Respondents. Faced with this difficulty Mr. D. N. Awasthy who appears for the Respondents contends that in any case in view of the fact that the State never took up an objection on the basis of section before the District Judge his clients were prevented from showing to the District Judge that there was a sufficient cause which prevented them from making the claim under Section 9 and, therefore, they are now entitled to show that cause. Before determining this matter it will be proper to see what is the true legal position particularly when an alternative argument has also been raised by the learned Counsel, namely, that the objection of Section 25 should be deemed to have been waived by the State and, therefore, the State is not entitled to raise this objection at this stage. 4. Section 25 is mandatory in terms and envisages three contingencies after notice under Section 9 has been issued. The first is that where a claim has been made the compensation cannot be enhanced by the Court in excess of what is claimed. The second is that where there is a refusal to make a claim or there is an omission without sufficient cause to do so the compensation cannot exceed the amount awarded by the Collector and the third is that where the omission to make a claim is justified for sufficient cause the compensation may exceed the amount awarded by the Collector but here, as in the case of the first contingency, there is no limitation that it cannot exceed the amount for there is no amount claimed and in the very nature of things none could be claimed. It was held in State v. Krishna Pillai Ramakrishna Pillai, I.L. R. 1955 T. C. 174, that - The provision s of the section quoted above are mandatory. It prescribes a penalty for the omission unless it is properly accounted for and on the language of the section it is the party who wants to be exempted from the penal consequences prescribed by at that should move the Court to permit him to make the claim for enhanced compensation. The wording of the section would seem to us to admit of no other construction. Decided cases support this view. The Secretary of State for India v. Govind Lal Bysak, (1908) 12 Cal W. N. 263, the Secretary of State for India in Council v. Bishan Dat, I.L.R. (1911) All. 336, Narain Dat v. The Superintendent of DehraDun : I. L. R. (1915) All. 9, Ram Parsad v. The Collector of Aligarh, (1917)40 I. C. 274. In Birbal v. Collector of Moradabad : A. I. R. 1927 All. 183, the Allahabad High Court followed the two earlier decisions of that Court mentioned above Certain other cases go further and hold that the claim in answer to the notice under Section 9(2) should be a specific claim, a claim which states in rupees the value of the claimant placed upon his property Orient Bank of India Limited v. Secretary of State, I. L. R. (1926) Lah 416:, (1926) 27 P. L. R. 656 and Subhanna v. District Labour Office, 1930 Mad. W. N. 373. The earliest Allahabad case cited above explains the rules embodied in the two relevant sections as follows: - In our opinion it was intended by Clause (2) of Section 9 that the owner of property about to be acquired should appear and state his claim in the manner provided by the clause so as to enable the acquisition officer to make a fair, proper and reasonable award based upon a proper enquiry after the proper means have been placed before him for holding such enquiry. Section 25, Clause (2) makes the refusal or omission to comply with the provisions of Section 9, Clause (2) without sufficient cause an absolute bar to the applicant in the reference obtaining a greater sum than that awarded by the Collector.' If we may say so with respect, this construction commends itself to us as conveying the true import of the combined effect of the two sections and is seen accepted in practically all the subsequent decisions bearing on the point. Practically all the relevant cases up to 1955 have been noticed. We are in respectful agreement with the statement of law laid down by the learned Chief Justice.;