S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) WHETHER the claim to compensation for land envisaged in Sections 9 and 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must necessarily be made in writing is the interesting question that arises in this regular first appeal. The facts giving rise to the same are not in serious dispute.
(2.) THE State of Punjab issued the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring 19.72 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of village Nasroli for the public purpose of constructing a 132 K.V. Grid Sub -Station at Gobindgarh. On actual demarcation and measurement at site, the area of the land came to 35 Bighas and 13 Biswas. The land -owners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per Bigha which would work out to about Rs. 24,000 per acre. The District Collector had estimated the value of this land at a rate of Rs. 4,800 per acre. However, the Land Acquisition Collector whilst giving his award on the 17th of August, 1962, marginally raised this assessment and directed the payment of compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 5.000 per acre to the owners. The land -owners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act sought a reference to the District Judge claiming that the true assessment of the value of the land was certainly not less than Rs. 5,000 per Bigha. In particular it was alleged that the Land Acquisition Collector had wholly failed to take into account the potential value of the land for building and industrial purposes because it virtually adjoined the flourishing township of Gobindgarh, which was developing on all sides and in particular towards -the land in dispute. In opposing the claim of the land -owners, the State of Punjab pleaded that the Land Acquisition Collector had in fact already awarded more than ample compensation for the land. A legal objection against the claims for compensation was also taken on the ground that a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act had been duly served on the land -owners but they had not filed written claims in pursuance thereof and consequently they were not entitled to any enhancement because of the provisions of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the compensation awarded is inadequate. If so, what should be the proper compensation? (2) Whether the reference is barred under Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act? (2 -A) What is the area of the land belonging to the claimants which has been acquired? (3) Relief. Under issue No. 1, the District Judge assessed the market price of the land at an enhanced rate of Rs. 1,800 per Bigha and directed the compensation to be paid accordingly. On issue No. 2, the District Judge repelled the objection of the State on the ground that the statements of the land -owners recorded before the Land Acquisition Collector and signed by them were sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 9 and Section 25 of the Act. This issue was -consequently decided against the Respondent -State. No evidence having been led in support of issue No. 2 -A, it was said against the claimants. In the result the landowners were held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,800 per Bigha along with a solatium at 15 per cent and interest for the excess amount at the rate of 4 per cent. The State of Punjab has appealed against the enhancement of the compensation whilst on the other hand cross -objections have been filed by the land -owners. Though originally the claim of the landowners during the proceedings before the District Judge was pegged at as high a figure as Rs. 5,000 per Bigha, in the cross -objections a relatively marginal enhancement of compensation at the rate -of Rs. 2,000 per Bigha only has been sought.
(3.) IT is obviously expedient to first take up the challenge on behalf of the Appellant -State to the finding on issue No. 2 and this is -so because if this legal issue is decided in favour of the Appellants then hardly anything else arises. Mr. Awasthy's contention on behalf of the State is that the landowners in response to a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act had not filed written claims before the Collector and were, therefore, precluded from claiming any enhancement of the compensation by virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. In essence the argument was that both Section 9 and Section 25 postulate a formal written claim by the landowner and unless it is so made in writing it would be no claim in the eye of law, and, therefore, the stringent rules as to the amount of compensation laid in Section 25 would become applicable.;