JUDGMENT :- This appeal, by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Mahasu, is directed against an order of the District Judge, Mahasu, whereby, on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), compensation payable to the respondent was enhanced by a sum of Rs. 2,385.95 nP.

2. Land, measuring one bigha and one biswa, comprised in Khasra No. 224/1, situated in Mashobra, Tehsil Kasumpti, District Mahasu, was acquired in connection with the construction of Dhali-Mashobra-Tatapani-Road. The land was owned by Shri Bihari Lal and was under the tenancy of Suit. Gulab Dassi, the mother of the respondent. The Collector, by his award, dated 3-9-59, awarded and apportioned, compensation, with respect to the acquisition of the land. Both Shri Bihari Lal and Smt. Gulab Dassi, felt dissatisfied with the award and filed objections against it. Their objections were referred to the learned District Judge, Mahasu, for determination.

3. In the present appeal, we are concerned with the objections, filed by Smt. Gulab Dassi only. She had died during the pendency of the reference in the Court of the District Judge. The respondent, her daughter, was brought on record, as her legal representative.

4. The objections of Smt. Gulab Dassi, which, are relevant for the decision of the present appeal, against the award, were that the market value of the land, as assessed by the Collector, was low and inadequate, and that no compensation, had been awarded for the five fruit trees which were standing an the land.

5. The reference was contested, on behalf of the Collector. It was denied that the market value of the land, as assessed by the Collector, was low. It was, further, denied that five fruit trees were standing on the land. Preliminary objections against the competency of the reference, and limitation, were also taken up. It was pleaded that as Smt. Gulab Dassi had failed to prefer any claim, pursuant to the, notice, under Section 9 of the Act, she was debarred from claiming more compensation than what had been awarded by the Collector, and that her reference for the award of more, compensation was not competent. It was, further, pleaded that her reference was also barred by time. But this plea was abandoned, later on, at the trial.

6. On the points in dispute, the learned District Judge held that the market value of the land was assessed low by the Collector, that five fruit trees were standing on the land and that Smt. Gulab Dassis reference was competent and she was not debarred from claiming more compensation than what was awarded by the Collector, as the notice under Section 9 of the Act, served on her, was not a valid one. As a result of his findings, the learned District Judge enhanced the market value of the land and awarded compensation for five fruit trees. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Collector has come up in appeal.

7. It was contended on behalf of the appellant, that the notice, under Section 9 of the Act, served on Smt. Gulab Dassi was a valid one and that the learned District Judge erred in holding that the notice was not valid and that she was not debarred from claiming more compensation than what was awarded by the Collector. On the other hand, it was contended, on behalf of the respondent, that the notice served on Smt. Gulab Dassi was invalid, as it did not comply with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. It was pointed out that the notice did not give clear fifteen days time to appear and file her claim before the Collector and also did not give the particulars of the land to be acquired, correctly. It was urged that the aforesaid infirmities in the notice rendered it invalid and that the failure of Smt. Gulab Dassi to file a claim pursuant to the invalid notice did not attract the application of Section 25 of the Act and did not debar her from claiming more compensation than what was awarded by the Collector.

8. A perusal of Section 9 of the Act makes it abundantly clears that a notice

Click Here to Read the rest of this document