Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, in the matter of a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Malappuram under S.19 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894). The acquired land is in Nilambur Amsom, it measured 2 acres 7 cents and the acquisition was for a metal quarry for the Public Works Department. The plot consisted mainly of a big granite rock, but there were also a few trees on it. The Land Acquisition Authorities awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2180/1/6, inclusive of the usual solatium of 15%. The land value fixed came to Rs. 1075-4-9, the value of improvements (trees standing on the property) to Rs. 820- 7-0 and the 15% solatium to Rs. 284-5-9. The market value of the land was ascertained by capitalizing the annual out put of metal (granite) at twenty year's purchase. Dissatisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Authorities, the land owner made an application to them under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring to the civil court the question of fixing proper compensation. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge before whom the reference came up for hearing and disposal enhanced the land value to Rs. 5585-4-6. The value for improvements was left untouched. Together with the solatium of 15%, the compensation fixed by the learned judge came to Rs. 7366-8-0. Interest was awarded on the enhanced compensation awarded by him at 6% per annum from the date of dispossession till realisation. The State has preferred this appeal against the enhanced compensation awarded by the lower court. 2. In arriving at the value of Rs. 5585-4-6 for the acquired land the learned judge found that the annual output of granite metal would be much higher than what the Land Acquisition Authorities had estimated and that the proper value of one unit (100 cubic feet) of metal would be Rupee 1/- and not Annas 5/- as fixed by the Land Acquisition Authorities. During the course of the enquiry before the lower court a Commissioner was deputed to inspect the quarry to find out its yielding capacity and it was on the basis of the report furnished by the Commissioner that the learned judge found that the annual output would be far larger than what the Acquisition Authorities had found. During the course of the enquiry before the lower court a Commissioner was deputed to inspect the quarry to find out its yielding capacity and it was on the basis of the report furnished by the Commissioner that the learned judge found that the annual output would be far larger than what the Acquisition Authorities had found. While the latter fixed the annual output at 300 units, the Commissioner found that it would easily come to 487 units. The learned judge accepted the Commissioner's figure. The enhanced value of the metal was based on a large volume of documentary evidence furnished by the claimant. The case put forward by the State that though one unit of metal might fetch a market price of Re. 1/-, annas 11/- out of it would go to the State as seigniorage was negatived by the learned Judge. Before him the State besides maintaining that the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Authorities was proper also raised a preliminary point that inasmuch as in answer to the notice issued to the claimant under S.9 of the Land Acquisition Act he had specified the amount of compensation he was entitled to receive, he could not claim or be allowed anything more than what he had claimed there. The learned judge repelled this objection as well. The memorandum of appeal filed in this court challenges all the findings arrived at by the learned judge. 3. The main point argued before us was whether the compensation should be limited to the amount specified in the claimant's statement filed in answer to the notice issued to him under S.9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. S.25 (1) of the said Act is the relevant provision bearing on the question and it is as follows: "When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under S.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 S.11" 4. In answer to the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Authorities the then Karnavan and Manager of the respondent (Nilambur) Kovilakam filed a statement setting out what value they should get for the land and as to what value should be awarded for the improvements. In answer to the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Authorities the then Karnavan and Manager of the respondent (Nilambur) Kovilakam filed a statement setting out what value they should get for the land and as to what value should be awarded for the improvements. The learned judge below, however, brushed aside that statement for two reasons and both those reasons appear to us to be unsustainable. According to him the claim for Rs. 2110 made in the statement was for the value of the site and for the trees, bamboo clusters etc., standing thereon and did not include the compensation on account of the rock. We are afraid this is a clear misreading of the statement. Para.4 of the statement (Ext. B2) reads: - "Amount claimed for jenm interest on the land - The claimant claims the sum of Rs. 2070 valued at Rs. 1000 per acre" 5. Particulars of the claim are then appended in several sub-paras and those particulars may also be extracted here: "Particulars of claim to compensation: (a) The market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under S.4 sub-section (1) was not less than Rs. 1000 per acre. The site is within a mile of the Nilambur Vazhikadavu Road. (b) The land concerned is partially granite rock. This claimant used to grant licences to quarry metal from similar lands. (c) Taking as basis the usual rate per 190 cubic feet of metal and the very large yield which could be expected, spread over for a many years, the land is of considerable value. (b) The claimant's earning of a steady income year by year for a long period of years would cease if the land is taken away from him" 6. Paragraph 5 refers to 'Improvements standing on the property' and after mentioning them seriatim claims a value of Rs. 30 as the value of various trees and an amount of Rs. 10 for the bamboo clusters. It is then stated that the market value of the improvements would be Rs. 40. Then the statement proceeds to make the claim under S.23 (2) and that claim is worded as follows: "The claimant also claims in addition to the market value of the land and the improvements standing thereon, a sum of fifteen per centum on it as provided for in S.23(2) of the Act". 7. 40. Then the statement proceeds to make the claim under S.23 (2) and that claim is worded as follows: "The claimant also claims in addition to the market value of the land and the improvements standing thereon, a sum of fifteen per centum on it as provided for in S.23(2) of the Act". 7. It is in our view impossible to read into Ext. B2, the claim statement, a demand for the value of the quarry over and above the land value claimed therein. It is on the basis that the claimant's statement contained sufficient averments demanding value for the quarry over and above the land value claimed that the learned judge proceeded to award excess compensation. There is no warrant for such an inference. 8. The other ground depended upon by the learned judge to get over the bar created by S.25 (1) is that there has been no proper notice to the land owner under S.9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, We are afraid that this ground is equally untenable. Though the notice was served only on an'employee of the land owner, perhaps not authorised to receive such notices on behalf of his master, the land owner had himself entered appearance and made his claim (Ext.B2) wherein he admitted that notice had been served upon him under S.9 (3) and 10 on 25-10-1946. Assuming there has been some irregularity about the service, as the land owner had appeared pursuant to the notice, on whomsoever it was served, the provisions as to notice will be taken to have been sufficiently complied with. Vide A. I. R.1955 Madras 406. 9. As both the grounds depended upon by the learned judge to get over the limits imposed by S.25 (1) are untenable we have necessarily to conform to that provision in the matter of fixing the excess compensation due to the land owner. It has already been noticed that the total land value claimed was only Rs. 2070 and that all that was claimed on account of improvements was only Rs. 40. The Land acquisition Authorities awarded Rs. 820-7-0 in respect of improvements and that award has not been challenged at all. We cannot therefore interfere with the award made on account of improvements. As for the land value, out of Rs. 2070 claimed, the Land Acquisition Authorities allowed Rs. 1075-4-9. The difference comes to Rs. 994-11-3. 40. The Land acquisition Authorities awarded Rs. 820-7-0 in respect of improvements and that award has not been challenged at all. We cannot therefore interfere with the award made on account of improvements. As for the land value, out of Rs. 2070 claimed, the Land Acquisition Authorities allowed Rs. 1075-4-9. The difference comes to Rs. 994-11-3. Even leaving out of account the controversy as to seigniorage, if land value is awarded to the land owner on the basis of the output of metal as found by the Commissioner deputed by the lower court, the enhanced compensation due for the land would come to Rs. 1168/12/-. Both sides agreed that twenty years' purchase of the additional output of 187 units found by the Commissioner came to Rs. 1168/12/-. We have not heard anything from the appellant's side as to why we should not accept the output of granite metal as found by the commissioner and which the lower court made the basis of its decision. However for reasons already explained the civil court cannot award more than Rs. 994/11/3 to the land owner as excess compensation for the land value. The lower court's decision allowing further enhancement will stand annulled. In addition to the amount of Rs. 2180/1/6 awarded by the Land Acquisition Authorities and already received by the land owner, he will get only Rs. 994/11 /3 plus the usual solatium of 15% thereon together with 6% interest on these two amounts (excess compensation and solatium) from the date of dispossession (21-6-1948) till realisation. In supersession of the lower court's decision we limit the claim for excess compensation as above. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. Parties will bear their respective costs in both the courts. Order accordingly.