Judgment :- 1. These are appeals by the State and the only question arising for decision in these appeals is whether in view of S.24 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1089, which was in force in the Travancore area at the relevant time the court to which reference was made under the Act was precluded from granting any amount by way of compensation in excess of what was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. 2. The Court below has answered this question in favour of the persons whose lands were acquired. 3. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has contended before us that this view taken by the court below is erroneous. He has rested his arguments on two grounds. Firstly it is contended that in cases where there has been personal service of notice as required by S.9(3) of the Act, the party cannot insist that there should be 15 days' time between the date of hearing and the date of service of notice. Secondly it is urged that in any view of the matter parties having admittedly made a claim in the sense of having filed a statement though without mentioning the amount claimed by way of compensation, S.24(3) will not enable the court to come to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for not making the claim. 4. Before dealing with this argument it is necessary to read S.9 and 24 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089: "S. 9 (1). The Division Peishkar shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intend to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. (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. (3) The Division Peishkar shall serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside, or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the Revenue Division in which the land is situate; (4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by Post or Anchal and registered in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business. (5) The notice shall also be published in the Gazette and shall be deemed to be sufficient notice to all persons interested in the land as between the Government and such persons." S. 24(1). 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 Division Peishkar under S.11. (2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Court) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Division Peishkar. (3) When the applicant has omitted for sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Court) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not be less than and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Division Peishkar." 5. Notice under S.9 (3) must be "to the same effect". This as we understand it, means that even in cases of personal service of notice under S.9 (3),15 days' time has to be given to the party. In this view we are supported by the decision of the Madras High Court in N.M. Venkatarama Iyer v. Collector of Tanjore reported in AIR. 1930 Madras 836 and of the Calcutta High Court in Tara Prasad Chaliha v. Secretary of State and Another, reported in AIR. 1930 Calcutta 471. No other decision on this aspect has been brought to our notice. 6. Notice was published under S.9 (1) on 12-8-1958. It was also personally served on the parties on the same date under S.9 (3). 1930 Calcutta 471. No other decision on this aspect has been brought to our notice. 6. Notice was published under S.9 (1) on 12-8-1958. It was also personally served on the parties on the same date under S.9 (3). The date of the hearing was on 22-8-1958. So 15 days' time provided by the section was not given. 7. It is however urged that because the party accepted the notice and even filed a statement asking for compensation (though without specifying the amount) it cannot be said that there has been sufficient reason for not putting forward a specific claim for a specific amount. The provision in S.9, we consider, is imperative. The object is to provide sufficient time to the parties to collect information and materials necessary and to draw up the statement so as to enable them to put forward a specific claim for a specific amount. If the imperative provision is not complied with, we think that would be sufficient reason for not having put forward a specific claim for a definite amount. In fact the Madras High Court in the decision referred to as well as the Calcutta High Court have taken the view that the failure to grant 15 days' time would be a sufficient reason for the failure to put forward a specific claim. We follow the decisions and hold that the lower court has acted properly in granting enhanced compensation. 8. In the result those appeals have to be dismissed and we do so. The parties will bear their costs. 9. Gross-appeals have been taken by those whose lands were acquired. The facts relating to the acquisition which is the subject matter of A.S. No. 429 of 1962 are that land measuring 1 acre 40 cents 186 sq-links comprised in Sy. No. 189/1 A-6 was acquired pursuant to notification under S.4 of the Act dated 29-4-1958. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 15/- per cent. This has been enhanced to Rs. 80/- by the court below. Counsel on behalf of the person whose land has been acquired contends that at least Rs. 100/- percent should have been awarded. He relies on three documents, Exts. P1, P2 and P3 in support of his claim for Rs. 100/- per cent. Ext. 15/- per cent. This has been enhanced to Rs. 80/- by the court below. Counsel on behalf of the person whose land has been acquired contends that at least Rs. 100/- percent should have been awarded. He relies on three documents, Exts. P1, P2 and P3 in support of his claim for Rs. 100/- per cent. Ext. P1 is a sale deed for a property lying to the north of the road which runs east-west cutting a large tract of land to the south of which road lies the property that has been acquired. The property comprised in Ext. P1 is 4 cents in extent. The document is dated 19-9-1955 and the rate is Rs. 100/- per cent. Ext. P2 is for a similar plot of 4 cents in extent lying west of the property covered by Ext. P1 and the consideration paid is Rs. 700/-. This includes the price of a small shop which was worth about Rs. 50/-. So the rate percent will work out to Rs. 162/-. Ext. P3 is a judgment in L.A.R. 70 of 1959 and this pertains to the acquisition of a piece of land lying to the west of the properties which formed the subject matter of the acquisition herein. This is a narrow strip of land with a road frontage at the north and extending north-south. The amount awarded is Rs. 100/- per cent. Reliance has been placed on the same Exhibits relied on by counsel, Exts. P1 and P2, in Ext. P3 case. The extent of the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition in Ext. P3 was 87 cents. Considering the fact that the land acquired which forms the subject matter in A.S. 429 of 1962 is much more extensive we think that an average price of Rs. 100/- per cent will be high. We however feel that an enhancement of what has been granted by the District Court is necessary and we therefore fix the price at Rs. 90/- percent. We modify the judgment of the court below to that extent and award Rs. 90/- per cent. The party will of course have the right to the usual solatium and the statutory interest on this enhanced amount. 10. The only other question remaining pertains to the cross-appeal taken in A.S. No. 436 of 1962. 90/- percent. We modify the judgment of the court below to that extent and award Rs. 90/- per cent. The party will of course have the right to the usual solatium and the statutory interest on this enhanced amount. 10. The only other question remaining pertains to the cross-appeal taken in A.S. No. 436 of 1962. The property which forms the subject matter in this case lies just to the south of the property which forms the subject matter in L.A.R. 40 of 1960 which we dealt with just now. The extent is 1 acre 59.814 cents. The price awarded by the District Court is Rs. 60/-. This is in enhancement of Rs. 15/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claim of counsel on behalf of the party is that it must be enhanced at least by Rs. 25/- per cent. The documents relied on are the same that we discussed in dealing with the cross appeal in A.S. 429 of 1962. Considering the fact that the property forming the subject of this acquisition lies far away from the road and to the south of the property in L.A.R. 40 of 1960, the amount of compensation in this case must be less than what we awarded for the property in the other case. The difference in the amounts awarded for the acquisitions by the court below is Rs. 20. This is a reasonable difference. We therefore fix the compensation payable at Rs. 70/- per cent. In addition the solatium as well as the statutory interest will be paid. 11. In the cross-appeals also, we direct the parties to bear their costs.