JUDGMENT K.K. Mathew, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree of the court below in a land acquisition matter. The appeal is preferred by the claimant. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of a plot of land, the claimant applied for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The claimant's main contention was that he was entitled to enhanced compensation. The court below without adverting to the merits of that question, dismissed the reference for the reason that the claimant was not entitled to put forward any claim for enhanced compensation on the ground that he had not claimed any compensation in answer to the notice under section 9 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act. In making the reference the Collector has stated that the claimant did not, in response to the notice under section 9, file any claim before the Land Acquisition Officer for compensation; and therefore the claim for enhanced compensation was incompetent. 2. In the court below the only issue raised was whether the plaintiff is entitled to any enhanced compensation, and if so, to what extent? The court below has held that as the claimant did not put forward any claim in answer to the notice under section 9, he was precluded under section 24 (2) from claiming any enhancement in compensation. 3. In this appeal, therefore, the only point for consideration is whether the view taken by the court below that because the claimant did not make any claim for compensation pursuant to the notice under section 9, he was precluded from claiming enhanced compensation. The appellant has cited two rulings, before me to show that the view taken by the court below is wrong on the ground that the State has not specifically taken this objection in its written statement. He referred me to State v. Ramakrishna Pillai 1955 K.L.T. 497 and Moideenkoya Haji v. Special Tahsildar 1962 K.L.J. 873. In both these rulings, it was held that the provision of section 9 is mandatory and that if a person failed without proper reason to prefer the claim before the Land Acquisition Officer he would be precluded from claiming any enhancement in compensation before the Court of reference. In the former case it seems also to have been held that the question is one which can be waived by the State. In the former case it seems also to have been held that the question is one which can be waived by the State. It was argued for the State that in the absence of any explanation by the claimant as to why he did not put forward his claim in answer to the notice under section 9 before the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference Court was right in dismissing the claim for enhanced compensation in view of section 24 (2). On a consideration of the facts and circumstances in this case I am of opinion that the court below was wrong in summarily dismissing the claim for enhancement on the ground that the claimant did not put forward the claim in answer to the notice under section 9. The only issue before the court below was whether the claimant was entitled to any enhanced compensation, and if so, to what extent. There was no plea in the written statement of the State that because of section 24 (2) the claimant was not entitled to any enhanced compensation. The claimant had therefore no opportunity to produce evidence to show that the notice under section 9 was not served upon him or that he was prevented by sufficient reason from making the claim in pursuance to the notice under section 9. It is elementary that the claimant should be given notice of the defence that because of the want of the claim under section 9 he was precluded from getting an enhancement in compensation. In the absence of a plea by the State in its written statement to this effect or of an issue relating to this subject matter, it has to be held that the court below was not right in taking up this question suo motu and disposing of the case without giving an opportunity to the claimant to have his say about the question. I therefore think that an opportunity must be given to the claimant to explain why he did not prefer the claim under section 9 within the time specified. The court below is therefore directed to consider this question also and dispose of the case after entering its finding on it. 4. The State has put forward the contention that proper court-fee has not been paid on the memorandum of appeal relying upon section 5 of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act. The court below is therefore directed to consider this question also and dispose of the case after entering its finding on it. 4. The State has put forward the contention that proper court-fee has not been paid on the memorandum of appeal relying upon section 5 of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act. I think that section 5 has no application in this case as in this appeal no enhanced compensation was claimed. The only case of the appellant is that the order of the court below disposing of the case on this preliminary ground is wrong and that there must be a decision of the case on merits. Section 5, according to me, can come into play only when a specific sum is claimed in the appeal by way of enhancement in compensation. As no amount by way of enhancement in compensation has been claimed in this appeal, I think, section 5 can have no application. In these circumstances, I think the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal is sufficient. 5. In the result, the decree of the court below is set aside and this appeal allowed and the case remanded to the court below for a fresh decision. The costs here and in the court below will be provided for in the decree to be passed by the court below. 6. In the light of my decision in A.S. No. 583 of 1959, this appeal has to be allowed. I set aside the decree of the court below, allow the appeal, and remand the case for a de novo decision. The costs here and in the court below will be provided for in the decree to be passed by the court below.