( 1 ) BY this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the Municipal Council, piparia, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing a notification issued on 16th May, 1951 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the acquisition of some land belonging to the respondent No. 3 for the benefit of the petitioner-Council and also for quashing an award dated 20th July 1963 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Hoshangabad, giving to the said respondent a total compensation of Rs. 40,250. The petitioner also prays that the order made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 20th July 1964 rejecting its application under section 18 of the Act for reference he also quashed and that the Land Acquisition officer be commanded to make a reference to the Court of the District Judge, Hoshangabad.

( 2 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that this application must be dismissed. The petitioner-Council is anxious to get rid of the award mainly because, according to it, the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent No. 3 is excessive. Shri Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner, first urged that the notification dated 16th May 1951 was vague and did not specify with precision the land to be acquired. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of the notification at this distance of time, to wit, 14 years after the issue of the notification on 16th May 1951 and when the applicant-Council lost no time after the issue of the notification in taking possession of the land covered by the notification.

( 3 ) IT was then submitted by learned counsel that when the respondent No. 3 balmukuad himself had valued the land in question at Rs. 20,000, the Land acquisition Officer was not justified in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,250. In this connection learned counsel referred us to Section 25 (1) of the Act. It does appear strange that when the respondent himself valued the land at Rs. 20,000, how the market value of this land was fixed at a figure very much higher than Rs. 20,000. But the Act docs not give any right to the petitioner-Council to question the amount of compensation fixed and also does not contain a provision prohibiting the Land Acquisition Officer from awarding compensation in excess of the amount claimed by the person whose land was acquired. Section 25 (1) of the act has no applicability here. It says-

"25. Rules as to amount of compensation : - (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 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 Section 11. " as is clear from the wording of the provision, it sets limits to the amount that can be awarded as compensation by the Court and not by the Land acquisition Officer. It says that "the, amount awarded. . . . . . by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under: Section 11".

This direction cannot be construed so as to mean that the Collector cannot also award compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the person whose land has been acquired. If the Collector awards to a claimant compensation exceeding the amount claimed by him, then under Section 25 the question of the Court awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed cannot arise; but the Court cannot reduce the amount awarded by the Collector which exceeds the amount claimed by the person concerned. It is no doubt odd that a person should be given compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer much more than actually claimed by him. This is no doubt a defect in the Act; but it can be removed by the Legislature and not by us by a forced construction of Section 25 (1) of the Act.

( 4 ) THAT the applicant was not entitled to demand a reference under Section 18 and has really no locus stan