JUDGMENT K.K. Mathew, J. This is an appeal preferred by claimants 2 to 6 in L.A.R. 9/1957 of the Additional District Court, Parur. The acquisition in this case was in respect of 2 cents of land in S. No. 303/16A/19 of the Perumbavoor Village for widening the junction of A.M. road with M.C. road at Perumbavoor. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 250 per cent. The claimants being dissatisfied by the award got the matter referred to the District Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the District Court dismissed the claimants claim for the enhancement on the ground that they did not claim any specific amount in their statement under section 9 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. So the only point to be considered by me is the correctness of the view taken by the lower court that the claimants are not entitled to enhanced compensation as they did not in their statement before the Land Acquisition Officer in answer to the notice under section 9 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act claim any specific amount as compensation for the land to be acquired. In the statement the claimants did not claim any specific amount as compensation for the property proposed to be acquired. In that statement they said that the properties in the neighbouring area were being sold for very high prices and as instances of such sales they referred to two sale deeds of neighbouring properties. Although it was stated that they were producing the two sale deeds, the learned Government Pleader tells me that as a matter of fact no sale deeds, were produced by them before the Land Acquisition Officer. Anyhow the fact remains that they did not claim in their statement any specific amount State of Kerala as compensation for the land to be acquired. The lower court relying on the decision reported in Orient Bank of India Limited v. Secretary of State A.I.R. 1926 Lahore 401, negatived the claim for enhancement as in their statement under section 9 (2) no specific amount was claimed as compensation. The lower court relying on the decision reported in Orient Bank of India Limited v. Secretary of State A.I.R. 1926 Lahore 401, negatived the claim for enhancement as in their statement under section 9 (2) no specific amount was claimed as compensation. Counsel for the appellant contended that the view of the lower court is wrong on the ground that the claimants had referred to two sale deeds in their statement and therefore it must be taken that they had indicated their intention to rely upon those sale deeds as furnishing the criteria for the compensation due to them. I confess, that, with all my sympathy for the claimants, I am not able to follow the argument. Section 9 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows: "(2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Division Peishkar at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state in writing signed by the party or agent the nature of their respective interests in the land, and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections, if any, to the measurements made."� The section is very clear that the plaintiffs must specify in their statement the amount which they claim as compensation for the land to be acquired. This question has come up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Subbanna v. District Labour Officer, East Godavari I.L.R. 53 Mad. 533. There, the claimant had filed certain sale deeds before the Land Acquisition Officer without claiming any specific amount in their statement. In answer to the contention of counsel that the production of the sale deeds was sufficient indication of the intention of the claimant to claim the amount mentioned in the sale deeds Beasely, C.J., made the following observation: "The claimant has got to claim an amount. I am satisfied rom a reading of that section and the other sections that a specific amount has got to be claimed. In these cases it is common for claimants in support of their claims to put in sale deeds, many in number and varying greatly in the amount of the purchase price. I am satisfied rom a reading of that section and the other sections that a specific amount has got to be claimed. In these cases it is common for claimants in support of their claims to put in sale deeds, many in number and varying greatly in the amount of the purchase price. If no claim for a specific amount is made, what amount is the Court to infer is claimed by the claimant? It may be the top purchase price or it may be the lowest purchase price or it may be the average purchase price; but no specific amount having been claimed, if this contention is right, it would be open to a claimant after an award has been made by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the Collector, to go to the Court and say: ' The amount awarded is less than the amount which I really claimed. It is quite true that the evidence shows that other lands were sold for certain amounts, but my real claim was for more than those amounts and I am entitled to an enhancement of the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In my view, that contention is unsound. What the Act does require is that there should be a specific claim, namely, a claim which states in rupees the value the claimant places upon his property; and there has been no such claim here and, in my view, the provisions of section 9 (2) of the Act have not been complied with."� The other learned Judge Cungenven, J., said : "As regards what happened on the 18th November, when he filed the two sale deeds, he himself has stated in cross-examination that he filed a statement along with them. But even so, he does not claim that the statement comprised a precise claim to an amount of compensation .. We must take it accordingly that either the mere filing of the sale deeds constituted an implied claim or that no claim at all was made. It seems clear to me that, according to the terms of section 25 (1), a claim must embody a precise amount claimed, because, that subsection provides that the amount awarded may not exceed the amount so claimed."� In State v. Ramakrishna Ptllai 1955 K.L.T. 497 at P. 499, Koshi, C.J., dealt with this question. It seems clear to me that, according to the terms of section 25 (1), a claim must embody a precise amount claimed, because, that subsection provides that the amount awarded may not exceed the amount so claimed."� In State v. Ramakrishna Ptllai 1955 K.L.T. 497 at P. 499, Koshi, C.J., dealt with this question. He said : "In Birbal v. Collector of Moradabad (A.I.R. 1927 All. 188) the Allahabad High Court followed the two earlier decisions of that Court mentioned above. Certain other cases go further and hold that the claim in answer to the notice under sections 9 (2); should 1 be a specific claim, a claim which states in Rupees the value the claimant places upon his property." �He then referred to the earliest Allahabad case which the rule the following manner: "In our opinion it was intended by clause (2) of section 9 that the owner of property about to be acquired should appear and state his claim in the manner provided by the clause so as to enable the acquisition officer to make a fair, proper and reasonable award based upon a proper inquiry after the proper means have been placed before him for holding such enquiry section 25, clause (2), makes the refusal 'or omission to comply with the provisions of section 9, clause (2) without sufficient cause an absolute bar to the applicant in the reference obtaining a greater sum than that awarded by the Collector."� In Lakshmi Narasimha v. Revenue Divisional Officer A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 902, Rajamanrar, C J., and Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., indicated their approval of the same principle, though on the facts of that case they came to a different conclusion. I therefore think that the conclusion arrived at by the lower court in this case is correct and this appeal has to be dismissed, and I do so with costs.