( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of an order passed on 20th June 1962 by Mr. T. P. Shah Civil Judge Senior Division Godhra in Land Acquisition References Nos. 9 and 14 of 1961 respectively. These two References wore heard along with three others and a common judgment was recorded in Land Acquisition Reference No. 13 of 1961.

( 2 ) THE claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No. 9 of 1961 (the appellant in First Appeal No. 63 of 1963) had claimed compensation for 14 mango trees of which 11 were in Survey No. 52/9 in Tankivaju and 3 In Survey No. 217/1/2 in village Carbada. She did not claim any ownership over those lands and her claim was in respect of those mango trees only. She claimed Rs. 150. 00 per tree together with solatium at the rate of 15% under sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 3 ) THE claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1961 the appellant in First Appeal No. 575 of 1962) claimed Rs. 150. 00 in respect of one mango tree standing on Survey No. 451/3 in village Carbada. He had thus claimed Rs. 172-50 np. including solatium at the rate of 15%.

( 4 ) THE Special Land Acquisition Officer Halol by his award dated 18 March 1958 valued each mango tree at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 and he accordingly allowed compensation for those mango trees at the rate of Rs. 50. 00 together with solatium at the rate of 15% thereon. Feeling dissatisfied with that part of the award the two claimants got the references made under sec. 18 of the Act to the District Court Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Land Acquisition Officer Halol. These two references along with three others were heard by the Civil Judge (S. D.) Godhra to whom those matters had been transferred by the District Judge. On a consideration of the evidence before him he found that since the claimants admitted before him to have not made any claim of compensation in respect of the trees in question they were not entitled to claim anything more than what was already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in view of sec. 25 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. He also found that the lands on which those trees were standing were submerged in water by the time when the notification under sec. 4 was published and since those trees were not standing on the date of the publication of notification under sec. 4 of the Act they were not entitled to claim any compensation in respect of those trees. In those circumstances he rejected the claims and confirmed the award passed in respect thereof by the Land Acquisition Officer. However he has stated that in the event of his findings so recorded being not correct and in case the claimants are entitled to compensation in respect of those trees they would be entitled to at the rate of Rs. 150. 00 per mango tree. They would be also entitled to solation at the rate of 15 % on that amount.

( 5 ) I was urged by Mr. Desai the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent that in view of the claimants having admitted in evidence about their having not made any such claims before the Land Acquisition Officer it was not open to them to claim any additional amount by way of compensation having regard to sec. 25 (2) of the ct. The question that therefore arises to be considered is as to whether the claim made out by the appellants is barred by reason of sec. 25 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Before we consider that point it is essential to set out sec. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. It runs thus:-25 (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation pursuant to any notice given under sec. 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 sec. 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. . . . . . . . . . . .