Judgement GOSWAMI, C. J. :- This First Appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned District Judge, Silchar, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act. 2. The appellant-company, whose land measuring 49 bighas 18 kathas 4 chataks including tea garden land with tea bushes, was acquired by the Government, was aggrieved by the award dated 15th November, 1967 of the Collector giving a sum of Rs. 63,405.10. The appellant is now claiming a sum of Rs. 3,87,222.25 p. Being aggrieved by the said award, it made an application to the Collector on 26th December, 1967 praying for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Although the actual date of the reference by the Collector is not known, it appears there was considerable delay in making the reference which was registered by the District Judge only on 5th March, 1970 being Misc. Case No. 21 of 1970. 3. At the time of hearing of the reference before the District Judge, an objection was taken under Section 25(2) of the Act on the ground that the appellant had refused or omitted without sufficient reason to make any claim to compensation after receipt of the notice under Section 9 of the Act. Being faced with this position, the appellant made an application before the District Judge on 16th June, 1972 under Section 25(3) of the Act, pleading certain sufficient reason for its omission to make the claim. The learned District Judge, however, held that there was no sufficient reason for omission to make the claim and, therefore, rejected the application and also the reference. Hence this appeal. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the notice under Section 9 was a valid notice in accordance with law and whether the same was served on the appellant. 5. It is now admitted that the notice under Section 9 was dated 2nd November, 1967 fixing 10th November, 1967 for making the claims and the same was served on an advocate representing the company before the Collector at an earlier stage by filing a vakalatnama on 10th October, 1967. As is noted earlier, the award itself was made on 15th November, 1967 within less than 15 days of even the date of the issue of the notice and even within six days of service of notice on the advocate. As is noted earlier, the award itself was made on 15th November, 1967 within less than 15 days of even the date of the issue of the notice and even within six days of service of notice on the advocate. We may now read Section 9 of the Act : "(1) The Collector should then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends 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 Collector 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 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 under Section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing; and signed by the party or his agent. (3) The Collector shall also 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 district 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 in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence address or place of business and registered under Part III of the Indian Post Office Act, 1866." 6. It is apparent that the advocate may have appeared on behalf of the company in the proceeding in connection with a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act or for some other matter in that connection. It is apparent that the advocate may have appeared on behalf of the company in the proceeding in connection with a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act or for some other matter in that connection. It is clear under Section 9(2) that notice under Section 9(1) has to be served upon all persons interested in the land and there is a clear mandate of the section not to give time in the notice less than fifteen days after the date of the publication of the same. The expression in Section 9(2) is of a compulsive character to the effect that "such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of the publication of the notice." As stated earlier, the notice under Section 9 issued on 2nd November, 1967 gave time for submission of claims within 10th November, 1967, which is in clear violation of the mandatory provision under Section 9(2), The notice issued under Section 9, therefore, is no notice under the law and omission to appear in Court in answer to such a notice, even if it were served on the appellant, would not justify a penal deprivation of the right to make a claim under Section 25(2). When omission to make a claim in answer to a statutory notice, such as is provided under Section 9(2), entails penal consequence as provided for in Section 25(2), strict conformity to legal requirement of the notice is demanded under the law. Besides, we find In this case that service of the notice under Section 9(2) on the advocate, in the circumstances stated above, is not proper service on the appellant. That being the position, the appellant had, in our opinion, sufficient reason for not making any claim in answer to the so called notice under Section 9(2) of the Act. The learned District Judge was, therefore, not justified in holding that the appellant did not make out a onus of sufficient reason for omitting to make its claim in answer to the notice under Section 9(2). The learned District Judge was therefore also not justified in rejecting the reference on that ground. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The reference is restored to the file of the District Judge, who will dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with the law. We will, however, make no order as to costs. The learned District Judge was therefore also not justified in rejecting the reference on that ground. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The reference is restored to the file of the District Judge, who will dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with the law. We will, however, make no order as to costs. R.S. BINDRA, J. :- I agree. Appeal allowed.