( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) A short but an Interesting question arises in this appeal. The notification under sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published in the Government Gazette on 3rd September 1958 In pursuance of a notice issued under sec. 9 of the Act the appellant- claimant filed his claim statement on 20th August 1959 At that time on the land under acquisition he had not planted the plantain plants The award was given by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10-11-59. The possession of the land was taken on 5-12-1959 i. e. after the award. The Land Acquisition Officer had made the Panchnama at the time of taking possession of the land. That Panchnama is Ex. 40 of 29-11-1959. It means that the Panchnama was also made after the award was declared. At that time the Panchnama of the standing crops was made. The Panchnama reveals that there were 2 0 plants of plantains standing on the land under acquisition and the possession of the land alongwith those plants was taken. The claimant-appellant in the reference application that came to be made had claimed compensation for the damages caused to him on account of taking possession of the land with the standing crops. He has stated therein that the income therefrom would have been to the extent of Rs. 9 0 No doubt he laid that claim stating it to be one of the grounds in support of his total claim of Rs 12 0 and odd. The learned trial Judge observed in para 10 of his judgment in regard to this claim as under :the claimant has led evidence regarding the loss of the crop of plantains in the land. There were plaintain plants nearly two months old when possession was taken on 5th December 1959 Already the award had been passed on 10th November 1959 and hence naturally the claimant did not claim any amount before the Land Acquisition Officer on this ground under sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. There was no crop when the notification under sec. 4 was published Hence the claimant is not entitled to any compensation for the crop as compensation for the land itself. He can claim compensation only under sec. 23 secondly.- But from the application for claim it is clear that he has not claimed anything for the crop of plantains. He has paid court-fee only for the additional compensation claimed for the land itself. He has been paid only the costs of cultivation while taking possession. No doubt he would be entitled to claim the loss he suffered because he could not harvest the crop. He has examined an expert who has estimated that the yield from 3 0 plants would have been 1 42 500 punds of plantains (Ex. 47) assuming that there were 3 0 plants in the land. The expert Chandulal Chhotalal (Ex. 45) did not actually see the crop but he only examined the soil and other factors. Moreover. his estimate is about average cultivation. He admits that the cultivation of the field in question was below average. Hence the yield that the claimant would have got would have been definitely much less than what the expert states. It is in evidence that the rate of the unripe plantains was Ks. 2-4-0 to Rs. 3-0-0 per maund. According to the claimant there were 3 0 plants. In the Panchnama made by the Government (Ex. 40) the number of plants is stated to be 2 0 There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that there were 3 0 plants. The claim of the claimant for the crop of plantains is Rs. 9 0 The amount he would have been entitled to to my mind would not have been more than Rs. 3000. 00. However as already stated as he has not paid the Court-fee stamps for the claim and as he has not actually made any claim on the ground he is not entitled to any compensation for the plantain plants that were standing on the land when possession was taken. It should be noticed that in the application for the claim in paragraph 3 the fact about there being 3 0 plantain plants on the land is mentioned only as one of the grounds for Claiming Rs. 12 650 the land itself. The question for consideration before us as