( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the award, dated 6th October 1964, made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Durg, in Revenue Case No. 17-A of 1965. It is urged that the said award was given without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of her claim and is thus vitiated.

( 2 ) THE circumstances in which the award was pronounced may he briefly stated. Certain land in mouza Kasaridih in the town of Durg was to be acquired for the purposes of the Bhilai Sled Project. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the land Acquisition Act were issued and pursuant thereto an award, dated 6th July 1961, was also given by the Land Acquisition Officer. After the award was given, the Land Acquisition Officer, however, came to the conclusion that the notification under Section 0 was defective and, therefore, requested the State Government to issue a fresh notification under Section 6. After the fresh notification was issued and was published, notices under Section 9 were issued to the land holders, but the award, dated 6th July 1961 was not withdrawn. Order-sheet, dated 12th July 1962, says:

''the declaration is published in the village on 24-6-62. Out of 65 land holders, 59 landholders have filed claim statements and do not want to adduce any evidence. The remaining 6 land holders are absent, though served. I proceed ex parte against them. Field statements and other statements as directed be prepared by field staff and duly checked by a. S. L. R. "

In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 313 of 1962 before this Court challenging the award, dated 6th July 1961, and the propriety of continuance of the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to fresh notification. That petition was allowed by this Court (Dixit, C. J. and Pandey, J.) and it was observed:"in the view we have taken of this case, the first valid notification under section 6 (1) of the Act was issued on 7 May 1962. It was only on the issue of that notification could the Land Acquisition Officer, Durg, issue notices to the persons interested and proceed to determine the compensation payable to them. He did issue such notices to them on 22 june 1962, but he made his award on 6 July 1961 even before they appeared before him or filed their statements of claim. In this situation the award made by him cannot be sustained. This will not however prevent him from making a fresh award in accordance with the provisions of the Act. "

( 3 ) THE order of this Court was passed on 6th February 1963 and the matter was taken up by the Land Acquisition Officer on 20th February 1963. Between 12th july 1962 and 20th February 1963 nothing was done in the case apart from awaiting the field statemenls. After 20th February 1963 no fresh notice was given to the land holders when the matter was taken up afresh for consideration after receipt of the record from the High Court. The Land Acquisition Officer proceeded on the basis of the notices issued under Section 9 previously and the claim statements filed by the petitioner and others and gave a fresh award, which is almost a paraphrase of the original one.

( 4 ) THE award cannot be sustained, as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to substantiate her claim and the principles of natural justice were violated. In the notices issued under Section 9, the land holders were required to submit their claim statements. The notices did not indicate that the parties were also to keep their evidence ready in support of the claim statements. The Land acquisition Officer was bound to enquire from them as to whether the claimants wanted to adduce any evidence or not. The statement of the Land Acquisition officer in the order-sheet that the parties do not produce any evidence is unwarranted and unjustified, as they were not called upon to produce any evidence by the notices issued under Section 9. In the claim statement of at least one claimant there is a demand for opportunity being given to