JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge, second Court, Dacca, dated the 26th September 1905, in a land acquisition case. The facts are as follows : There is a plot of land, the area of which is 4 cottahs, 12 dhurs, which the Government has acquired, under the Land Acquisition Act, in Tantibazar in Dacca. The persons interested are two in number, Gobind Lal Basak and Keshab Lal Basak. The Collector took proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and issued notices with reference to the said plot, under sec. 9 of the Act, on the 23rd March 1903. Neither of the persons interested appeared before him in accordance with the terms of the notices under sec. 9, or preferred any claim for compensation. The Collector thereupon made his award on the 24th April 1903, giving compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per bigha for the land acquired. As neither of the parties interested had appeared before him, he gave them notice of the award on the 9th May 1903. Then one of the persons interested Gobind Lal Basak, applied to the Collector on the 16th June 1903. He objected to the rate awarded and claimed compensation at the rate of not less than Rs. 4,500 per bigha: and he prayed that the case might be sent to the Court of the District Judge. The Collector made the reference to the District Judge on the 3rd July 1903, under sec. 18 of the Act. Up to this time Keshab Lal Basak, the other person interested, had not appeared. But while the reference was pending before the District Judge he on the date fixed for hearing, namely, the 12th September 1903, applied to be made a party. On the 16th July 1904, the Subordinate Judge affirmed the award of the Collector. He subsequently granted a review; and finally on the 26th September 1905 he awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per bigha. 2. The Secretary of State now appeals and on his behalf two grounds of appeal have been urged, first, that as no claim pursuant to the notices under sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was made by either of the opposite parties, the lower Court under sec. (sic) sub-sec. 5,000 per bigha. 2. The Secretary of State now appeals and on his behalf two grounds of appeal have been urged, first, that as no claim pursuant to the notices under sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was made by either of the opposite parties, the lower Court under sec. (sic) sub-sec. (2), had no power to m(sic) ward for an amount exceeding that awarded by the Collector, and, secondly, that there was no sufficient reason for the claimants not having made any claim before the Collector and therefore the lower Court had no right to make the award which It has done. 3. We think that these pleas must prevail. 4. It is clear that the first claimant, Gobind Lal Basak, made no claim pursuant to the notice issued to him, under sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, because he did not make any claim for compensation within the time specified in the notice. We do not know exactly what the period specified in the notice was. But the period allowed could not have been less than 15 days from the Issue of the notice and it must have expired some day previous to the award, which was made on the 24th April 1903. Hence the claim which Gobind Lal Basak made on the 16th June 1903 cannot be regarded as a claim made pursuant to the notice under sec. 9 of the Act. 5. As for the other claimant, Keshab Lal Basak, he made no claim at all, either before the Collector, or before the District Judge. 6. In these circumstances it is clear that the Subordinate Judge was debarred by the terms of sec. 25, sub-sec. (2) of the Land Acquisition Act from awarding to the claimants an amount exceeding that which was awarded by the Collector, unless the claimants satisfied him that they had sufficient reason for refraining from making their claim in due time. Now, the learned Subordinate Judge has not said a word on this point. He has not alluded to this matter at all. He has not explained why he has allowed the claimants to make a claim before him which they did not make pursuant to the notices under sec. 9 of the Act; and, therefore, it appears to us that he was not justified in making the award which he has made exceeding that of the Collector. He has not explained why he has allowed the claimants to make a claim before him which they did not make pursuant to the notices under sec. 9 of the Act; and, therefore, it appears to us that he was not justified in making the award which he has made exceeding that of the Collector. It will be observed that under sec. 25, sub sec. (2), it is necessary, if the Judge allows a claimant, who has not made a claim pursuant to the notice under sec. 9, to make a claim before him, that he should expressly allow him to do so; and we understand that, this implies that he must expressly allow him and must state his reasons for so allowing to make a claim. That has not been done in this case; and no explanation has been offered to us of Gobind Lal Basak's making a claim till the 16th June 1903, and of Keshab Lal's making no claim at all. We, therefore, do not think that the award made by the Subordinate Judge can be sustained. 7. The pleader for the Respondents argues that the case is covered by the provisions of sec. 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But we do not consider that this is so, because the points now raised before us relate both to the merits of the case as well as to the jurisdiction of the Court. This appeal is accordingly decreed with costs of both Courts. We assess the bearing-fee at five gold mohurs.