JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. Sambalpur in a land acquisition proceeding increasing the amount of compensation in favour of the Respondent. For a breeding farm at Kalamati; the Government of Orissa acquired 7.62 acres of land belonging to the Respondent. Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 23_LI964. The Land Acquisition Collector has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,944.42 including Rs. 16.58 towards acquisition of trees. The Respondent challenged the award as grossly inadequate and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre and 30% towards potential value on the ground that the lands are situated very close to the National Highway, Hirakud Dam, Burla Medical College, Burla Engineering College and other institutions of importance and the lands are in a fast developing locality. She also claimed interest. On a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Subordinate Judge has fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre for 'Bahal' land, Rs. 3,000/- per acre for 'Barna' land and Rs. 2,000/- per acre for 'Ata' land. He has fixed the valuation of the trees at Rs. 25/-. The learned Subordinate Judge has also awarded additional compensation at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6%. 2. In appeal, it is contended that the Respondent is not entitled to any amount in excess of the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector, inasmuch as she has not definitely stated the amount of compensation in her objection. It is further contended that the valuation as fixed by the Subordinate Judge is not proper. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the State Government has failed to establish that there was service of notice u/s 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and on that ground the stand taken by the State Government that the Respondent is not entitled to more than what has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector inasmuch as she did not state the definite amount claimed by her was rejected. Ext. A is the objection filed by the Respondent on 12-12-1964 before the Land Acquisition Officer. Ext. A is the objection filed by the Respondent on 12-12-1964 before the Land Acquisition Officer. Therein, the Respondent has stated that she has made improvements on the land by spending a huge amount and the classification of the land as mentioned in the notice issued to her is wrong. She has further mentioned that the lands acquired are raiyati lands. Her claim is that she should be awarded compensation at the present market rate prevailing in that village and the neighbouring villages or at the High Court rate along with interest and additional compensation. The Respondent has been examined as P.W. 1 and in her statement in Court she has stated that she received the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, it is evident that she has admitted receipt of the notice. She has also mentioned about the notice in her objection, Ext. A. In view of such statement, it cannot be said that the Respondent has not received the notice. 4. In the objection filed before the Land Acquisition Officer, the Respondent claimed that the compensation awarded was not proper, she was entitled to higher compensation because she had made improvements on the lands and the classification of the lands was not correct, inasmuch as the lands are raiyati lands. The Respondent claimed the compensation at the High Court rate, which means the value of the lands should be as decided by the High Court for the lands of the same quality acquired for the same purpose. In her statement in Court, the Respondent has stated that the lands are at a distance of about ten yards from the National Highway. According to the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the notice shall state the particulars of the land 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 (it should not be earlier than fifteen days after the 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 u/s 8 of the Act. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 envisages that when the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given u/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. Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section envisages that when the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector and according to Sub-section (3) when the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) 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 Collector. 5. It would thus appear that it is not incumbent on the part of the claimant to state his objections in writing and in case the Land Acquisition Collector thinks proper, he can get the objections in writing from the claimant and signed by the claimant. The claimant can also subsequently state the amount of compensation orally. In the instant case, there is no evidence on behalf of the State Government that the State Government did not make any oral objection as to the amount of compensation From Ext. A, it appears that the claimant-Respondent has stated that the classification of the lands is not proper and the High Court has awarded compensation or such lands at a particular rate and she is entitled to the same rate. In her objection, u/s 18 of the Act, she has claimed at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per area. In support of her claim,' she has also filed previous judgments relating to lands in the same locality acquired for the very same purpose, as in the instant case. In her objection, u/s 18 of the Act, she has claimed at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per area. In support of her claim,' she has also filed previous judgments relating to lands in the same locality acquired for the very same purpose, as in the instant case. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sanagouda Paragouda Patil AIR 1974 Karn 74, a Division Bench has held that where the lower Court has considered the explanation offered by the claimant for his failure to file his claim statement after service of notice u/s 9 of the Act, and has held that there was sufficient reason for such failure, the High Court will not interfere with the discretion exercised unless it appears that in exercising its discretion the lower Court has acted unreasonably or cepriciously or has ignored relevant facts. For this decisions, the Division Bench has relied on the principles laid down in Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Federation Ltd. Vs. Sunder Brothers of Delhi. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in State of Bihar Vs. Anant Singh and Others has held that it is not enough to prove that statements of claim in writing had not been filed before the Collector; what is to be proved u/s 25(1) is that the applicants had not made "claims to compensation' and not that the applicants had not 'filed-statements in writing' before the Collector. There is no obligation on the interested person to file statements in writing unless they are required to do so, as contemplated by Section 9(2) of the Act. The mere fact that they may not have made any statement in writing is not sufficient to uphold the contention based on Section 25 of the Act, unless there is evidence to show that the applicants had not made any oral claim before the Collector and there is sufficient evidence to prove that valid notices had been served upon them u/s 9 of the Act. In K. Subrahmanyamma Vs. District Welfare Officer, Eluru in reply to the notice u/s 9, the claimant filed a statement before the Land Acquisition Officer and also attached a patta of the land with it. In K. Subrahmanyamma Vs. District Welfare Officer, Eluru in reply to the notice u/s 9, the claimant filed a statement before the Land Acquisition Officer and also attached a patta of the land with it. He did not, however, know that specific amount should be mentioned in the petition, and wrote only about the land and about his right under a bona fide impression that the annual income from the lands realised by him would provide a sufficient data for determining the amount dammed. It was held in that case that the claimant was not at all negligent, but was acting with due diligence and in good faith. Because no details were given for determining the compensation, it could not be said that no claim at all was made pursuant to the notice u/s 9(2). The claimant had in that case made a reference to the price of paddy. The High Court held that the piece of paddy on the date of the notification was available from the gazette and well known to the Land Acquisition Officer as well as to others, and it could not be taken judicial notice of. For the aforesaid reasons, no penal consequences of Section 25 should be applied and the claimant was entitled to claim compensation in excess of what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, For this finding, the High Court has relied on several decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts and a decision of the Sind High Court. 6. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the Appellant on The Collector, Seoni Vs. Dadoo Yogendra Nath Singh and Others for the proposition that the Respondent is not entitled to any amount in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. In our view, this decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the claimant had restricted his claim at Rs. 1,500/- per acre and the contention was that it was not open for the Court to award more than what the claimant had claimed and as the claimant had fixed the claim amount at Rs. 1,500/- the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act will be the bar and the Court cannot award higher compensation. Therefore, the question raised in that case is completely different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 1,500/- the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act will be the bar and the Court cannot award higher compensation. Therefore, the question raised in that case is completely different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reliance has also been placed on Special Land Acquisition Officer, Oily Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore v. Chikkaboranna AIR 1968 Mys. 319. The principles laid down therein do not help the Appellant in any way. It was held in that case, what has to be proved u/s 25(1) is that the applicant had not made claims to compensation and not that the applicant had not filed statements in writing before the Collector and there is no obligation on the interested person to file statements in writing. Stringed provisions of Section 25 did not arise in a case where even if there was any formal defect in the claim for compensation put forward by the claimant, the discretion exercised by the appellate Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 could not be said to be illegal. The Appellant has also relied on The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram Vs. Vommi Appalaswami and Others wherein it has been held that the regour of Section 25(2) of the Act is mitigated by Section 25(3), According to it, if the Court is satisfied that there was sufficient reason for the Appellant's lapse u/s 9, the Court can award a sum in excess of the sum awarded by the Collector. Thus, the Court on being satisfied about the bona fides of the claimant's conduct, can remove the penalty imposed by Section 25(2), and grant compensation in excess of what has been a warded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It has further been held that a written application is not essential and the Court can act on oral application and can award enhanced compensation, if sufficient cause is shown. 7. If the materials available on record in the present case are considered in the light of the decisions referred to above, it cannot be said that the Respondent has not put forward any claim. In Ext. A, the Respondent has objected on the ground that the classification of the lands is not correct and has claimed that she is entitled to compensation at the rate awarded by the High Court for such lands. In Ext. A, the Respondent has objected on the ground that the classification of the lands is not correct and has claimed that she is entitled to compensation at the rate awarded by the High Court for such lands. Undisputedly, there had been decisions of this Court for such lands and for the same acquisition in the very same locality prior to the objection filed by the Respondent. There is no statement on behalf of the State Government that the Respondent had not at any stage made any oral objection It would thus appear that the objection by the Respondent was bona fide and she acted in good faith. Simply because there is no mention about the question in arithmetical figures, the Respondent cannot be debarred from making claim in excess of what has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. There are sufficient materials in the objection and any statement on behalf of the State Government that she did not raise any oral objection at any time will not disentitle the Respondent from claiming higher compensation. In substance, there are sufficient materials on record as well as in the objection entitling her to higher compensation. The Court has sufficient power, in such circumstances, to see if the claim has been bona fide. Accordingly, we hold that the Respondent is entitled to higher compensation and the provisions of Section 25 will not be bar to her claim. 8. The next question related to fixation of value of the lands acquired. The trial Court, for reasons recorded by it, has not accepted the sale deeds or the oral evidence in this respect and we also agree with the view of the trial Court. Reliance has been placed on two judgments (Exts. 1 and 2) which relate to the acquisition of lands of similar type in the same locality for the very same purpose. P.W. 1 in her statement has also referred to these two judgments and her statement has not been dislodged in any way relating to the claim. Further, the Respondent, in this Court, has also relied on another judgment of this Court in State of Orissa v. Mantri Uram and Anr. F.A. No. 53 of 1972 Dd. on 11-9-1973. P.W. 1 in her statement has also referred to these two judgments and her statement has not been dislodged in any way relating to the claim. Further, the Respondent, in this Court, has also relied on another judgment of this Court in State of Orissa v. Mantri Uram and Anr. F.A. No. 53 of 1972 Dd. on 11-9-1973. The trial Court has fixed the valuation of the lands in question according to its earlier decisions as well as the report of the Revenue Inspector, who at the instance of the Collector, after the objection was filed by the Respondent, held the local enquiry and has given the classification of the lands. The trial Court has accepted the report of the Revenue Inspector who is none but an officer of the present Appellant in fixing the amount of compensation relating to different types of land as found by the Revenue Inspector in the locality. Nothing has been brought out on record to show that the report of the Revenue Inspector is incorrect or that no reliance can be placed on the judgment, Exts. 1 and 2, which have not been challenged by the State Government. The finding of the trial Court in this respect is also supported by a decision of this Court, referred to above. 9. On the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any compelling reason to differ from the findings of the trial Court. 10. In the result, the appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs. R.N. Misra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed