SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. POPAT PREMJI — 1980 DIGILAW 191 (GUJ)

N. H. BHATT, S. L. TALATI, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) BEFORE we fix the just compensation one point is required to be decided and that is in regard to First Appeal No. 218 of 1975 filed by the claimants of survey no. 55. The learned Second Extra Assistant Judge rejected the reference on the ground that the claimants did not prefer any claim pursuant to the notice given under sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore they were not entitled to enhanced compensation under sec. 25 of the Act. ( 3 ) THE learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Mr. Shah drew our attention to the evidence of claimant Dharamshi who is examined at Exh. 23. In his evidence in cross examination he admitted that he was given notice by Talati and that notice is signed by him and that notice is Exh. 24. He also admitted that he had not given any objections in pursuance to that notice. On perusal of Exh. 24 it appears that in column no. 5 Dharamshi placed his signature on 30-9-1971 in column no. 4. The area acquired is mentionedh A SM CM as 6-12-24-30. Now therefore this notice was in regard to the land which was being acquired by notification dated 25-2-1971. Exhibit 24 is a receipt obtained by Talati for the notice which was given under sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. In order to appreciate the argument fully it would be necessary to refer to Exh. 79 also. Exhibit 79 is the copy of the notice purported to have been issued by the Land Acquisition Officer on 15 Interested parties were directed by that notice to attend the Rest House at Mendarada on 13-10-1971. Survey no. 55 is mentioned in that notice and the area mentioned is h A SM CM 6-12-24-30. Now it may be stated that the claimants of survey no. 55 submitted an application under sec. 18 by which they requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the District Court. That was done. It was numbered as Land Reference No. 3 of 1972. Now in that reference the defence of the State was that the claimants were not entitled to any additional compensation in view of sec. 55 submitted an application under sec. 18 by which they requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the District Court. That was done. It was numbered as Land Reference No. 3 of 1972. Now in that reference the defence of the State was that the claimants were not entitled to any additional compensation in view of sec. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act The precise case was that the claimants had not submitted the claim in response to the notice under sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Now therefore it was clearly required to be proved by the State that notice under sec. 9 as contemplated was served and the objections were not filed. The above discussion would show that there is no evidence that any notice whatsoever was served in regard to part of survey number which was acquired by notificationh A SM. CM. dated 11-12-1969 by which land admeasuring 0-12-7-70 was being acquired. However Exh. 79 shows that a notice was issued in regard 10 acquisition of part of survey no. 55 the acquisition being acquisition under notification dated 25-2-1971. Here the notice was admittedly served and exhibit 24 shows that notice was served on 30-9-1971. Exhibit 79 shows that the claimants were required to attend Mendarada Rest House on 13-10-1971. The learned advocate Shri Hathi appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that this was not a notice giving 15 clear days to the claimants and therefore notice was not valid. In order to appreciate this argument one has to look to sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act which is reproduced as under:- "9. (1) The Collector shall 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. (1) The Collector shall 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 receptive 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 sec. 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 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. x x x x x x x x x x x" sec. 9 (1) requires the Collector to cause public notice to be given at convenient places. Sec. 9 (2) requires that such notice shall state the particulars of the land. so needed and it is required to be served on all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at the time and place therein mentioned. It is clarified that such time not being earlier than 15 days after the date of publication of the notice. Sec. 9 (3) further lays down that the Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier of such land and on all such persons known or believe to be interested therein. The question which is required to be considered is what would be meaning of the words to the same effect occurring in sec. 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Asstt. Government Pleader Mr. Shah submitted that so far as public notice under sec. The question which is required to be considered is what would be meaning of the words to the same effect occurring in sec. 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Asstt. Government Pleader Mr. Shah submitted that so far as public notice under sec. 9 (2)is concerned clear 15 days time is required to be given. However according to him so far as notice under sec. 9 (3) is concerned no time is prescribed and the words to the same effect would only mean that the notice should contain the particulars which are required. We may here say that non submission of claim before the Land Acquisition Officer disentitles a person to claim additional compensation. To that extent the provisions is a penal provision. The reason is obvious. A person may be feeling that the compensation which is required to be awarded so far as his lands are concerned must be awarded at a particular amount. If the Land Acquisition Officer awards compensation which is less the claimant has been given a right to apply for reference and the Land Acquisition Officer has no choice but to refer the matter to the District Court. Now therefore when sec. 25 lays down that in a case where the claimant had oat submitted his claim before the Land Acquisition Officer he shall not be entitled to additional compensation. This would mean a penal provision for his default of nonsubmission of the claim. That default could arise because of two reasons. One reason would be that he did not receive the notice and there fore did not know about it and therefore be could not submit the claim. The other reason could be that though he received the notice he never chase to apply. In the second category of cases only it could be submitted and argued that the claimant did not chose to submit the claim. Therefore in order to succeed the first premise is required to be fully established and the first premise is that a notice as contemplated by sec. 9 is served on the claimant and inspite of that notice he failed to submit the claim. In order to construe sec. 9 therefore under the above circumstances it is required to be construed strictly. The compliance of that notice and the provisions contained in sec. 9 should be considered to be mandatory. 9 is served on the claimant and inspite of that notice he failed to submit the claim. In order to construe sec. 9 therefore under the above circumstances it is required to be construed strictly. The compliance of that notice and the provisions contained in sec. 9 should be considered to be mandatory. The meaning of the words to the same effect could only be that an occupier or a person known to be interested must have a notice and that notice must have the same effect as that which is contemplated under sec. 9 (2) of the Act. If that notice had any other effect it would not be a notice as contemplated by sec. 9 of the Act. This would mean that all the particulars which are required to be stated in sec. 9 (2) must be stated. The time and place where the claimants are expected to attend also are required to be stated. When time is required to be stated that time cannot be the time being earlier than 15 days after service of the notice. Sec. 9 (2) speaks about the publication of the notice and the time of 15 days is fixed in regard to the date of publication of the notice. If the same effect is to be given to the notice under sec. 9 the only alternative left is that 15 days shall have to be counted so far as the interested person is concerned from the date of service to him. If that is not done the absurd result might follow. In a case supposing a person is served with a notice after the date fixed for filing the claim the notice could have been issued earlier because it was published earlier. The Revenue Talati who is entrusted with the work might take 10 15 20 days to serve the notice. Ultimately he might serve it on the last day or even next day after due date. The claimants therefore would not be able to put their claims. The result would be that they would not be entitled to claim additional compensation. If such a consequence is to follow we have to construe sec. Ultimately he might serve it on the last day or even next day after due date. The claimants therefore would not be able to put their claims. The result would be that they would not be entitled to claim additional compensation. If such a consequence is to follow we have to construe sec. 9 (3) in such a manner which was intended and it appears to us that the words to the same effect would only mean that so far as the person receiving the notice is concerned he must have the same effect on him as other persons would have when they receive the public notice as contemplated by sec. 9 (2 ). We are supported in our view by two judgments and one judgment is a case VALACAPUDI KANAKA DURGA V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA DISTRICT CHILAKAPUDI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN A. I. R. 1971 ANDHRA PRADESH AT PAGE 310. In paragraph 6 of that judgment it was observed as under :- "in the absence of any other provisions as to the time factor in sub-sec. (3) the words to the same effect in the sub-section must take in the requirement of fifteen days notice provided by sub-secs. (1) and (2 ). "the other case is a case of LALASAHEB NABIN CHANDRA BHANI DEO AND ANOTHER V. THE STATE OF ORISSA REPORTED IN A. I. R. 1975 ORISSA AT PAGE 126 In that case it was observed as under:- "unless proper notice under sec. 9 (3) is served on the claimants they cannot be debarred under sec. 25 (2) to make a claim for higher compensation before the Court on the ground that they had omitted to make such a claim before the Collector. Thus where the notice under sec. 9 (2) merely gave only three days notice instead of 15 clear days notice as required by that section and the Court has accepted this as a sufficient reason for not making any claim before the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to that notice the Court has jurisdiction under sec. 25 to award a higher sum than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. "in this view of the matter we will have to allow First Appeal No. 218 of 1975 and we will have to award additional compensation in regard to survey no. 55. Appeal partly allowed. .