S. L. TALATI, J. ( 1 ) THE learned advocate Shri Patel appearing on behalf of the claimant submitted that the whole approach of the learned Assistant Judge was wrong and the problem was not correctly appreciated. According to him there was a clear claim for a sum of Rs. 41400. 00on head (A) where-there were two sub-divisions and the learned Assistant Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record and further fell into an error by not properly appreciating as to what was required to be considered at the time of passing of the award and what was not required to be considered. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Assistant Judge. The first error which is committed is that the learned Assistant Judge thought that the claimant had not preferred his claim as required under sec. 9 (j) of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore most of the amounts could not be considered because there was a bar created by sec. 25 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 25 (2) of the Act reads as under :"25 (2) 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". This section is required to be read with sec. 9. Section 9 (2) reads as under:-"4 (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 sec. 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the part or his agent". Now therefore when notice is issued minimum time which is required to be given to the claimant is 15 days. 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the part or his agent". Now therefore when notice is issued minimum time which is required to be given to the claimant is 15 days. These two sections and the effect thereof was considered by this Court is case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Junagadh v. Popat Premji reported in 1980 (2) G. L. R. 526: 1981 Gujarat Law Herald at page 458 What has been held in that case is that the notice must be a notice which must be served in such a way that after service of that notice the claimant gets clear 15 days to present his case. Now in this particular case on behalf of the Special and Acquisition Officer written statement is filed at exh. 9. No contention is taken that such a notice was served and clear 15 days time was given. There was no issue and no evidence was led to show that notice was served on the claimant on a particular day. When this question was argued by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri J. U. Mehta we asked him to produce even at this stage the original of the notice given on which the claimant might have put his signature in token of receiving the notice and establish that the notice was served on a particular date. This became necessary because in the reference application there was a clear averment made that the notice was served on 23-8-1972 and the claimant was called upon to reply on 24-8-1972. It may be that the notice might have been issued on a earlier date but that notice according to the claimant was served on 23-8-1972 and he was called upon to remain present on 24-8-1972. Thus he got only one days time to prepare his claim. This averment is not denied when written statement exh. 9 was filed. When therefore this specific averment was made which was not denied there could not be any issue or evidence and it was required to be assumed that what was stated in the reference application and which was not denied because it was true. This averment is not denied when written statement exh. 9 was filed. When therefore this specific averment was made which was not denied there could not be any issue or evidence and it was required to be assumed that what was stated in the reference application and which was not denied because it was true. Under these circumstances we feel that the learned Assistant Judge fell into an error when he considered the ground that the claim in regard to certain items was not made as required by sec. 25 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 2 ) THE learned Assistant Judge also fell into an error by referring to the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In paragraph 10 of his judgment the learned Assistant Judge observed as under :-"the Land Acquisition Officer has said in clause (f) in paragraph 5 of his award that the Land under acquisition is situated near the village site locality at the distance of a furlong He has also observed there in that the irrigation facilities are available to the lands under acquisition. So the acquired land was irrigated land. In this view of the matter there are reasons to believe that the applicant was taking more than one crop from the acquired land in one year. In view of the fact that the village site locality is practically near the acquired land it will have to be held that this land was possessing some potentiality for building purpose". Again in paragraph 12 of the JUdgment the learned Assistant Judge observed:"in the reference at exhibit I the Land Acquisition officer has said that notice under sec. 9 was served upon the present applicant on 8-8-72 and his statement for claim was recorded on 23-8-72". Further in that paragraph the learned Assistant Judge referred to the award and stated as under:"in this view of the matter the statement of the Land Acquisition Officer in his reference exhibit 1 that the applicant was served with the notice on 8-8-72 appears to be correct". We do not propose to repeat all the statement made by the learned Assistant Judge where he referred to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. We may only say that the law on the point is clear and the Court is not entitled to consider any observations made by the Land Acquisition Officer while making an award. We do not propose to repeat all the statement made by the learned Assistant Judge where he referred to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. We may only say that the law on the point is clear and the Court is not entitled to consider any observations made by the Land Acquisition Officer while making an award. Whatever amount is awarded is an offer and the only thing which could be referred to is the ultimate offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer in regard to the land. The observations are irrelevant. They do not become evidence they cannot be read and they cannot be considered. If one reads the award and considers that to be evidence he is bound to fell into an error. The Court has only to see as to what is the amount awarded. Thereafter it is for the applicant who makes reference to show that the amount offered to him by the award is inadequate. If he is able to show he succeeds and if he is not able to show he fails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manibhai is the last witness examined by the claimant and his evidence is at exh. 163. He is a person aged 52 and he is doing agricultural work in the same village. He stated that he had seen the acquired land and according to him the lemon trees would yield 12 to 14 maunds of fruits in one year. According to him a tree will give fruits for about 35 to 40 years. The witness stated that he had got 60 lemon trees. In paragraph 2 of his evidence he stated that the remaining land was Kiyari land and paddy was sown. Thereafter he gave details in regard to the yield of paddy per vigha and the price thereof. In cross-examination he stated that he had no personal knowledge about the quantity of yield of fruits from each of the trees of the applicant. He also stated that he had no accounts of cultivation of his crops. Now we may here say that normally it is not expected of an agriculturist of this type that they would keep accounts. It is worth mentioning that witness Manibhai exh. 163 is not at all interested in the claimant. He himself was an agriculturist. He also stated that he had no accounts of cultivation of his crops. Now we may here say that normally it is not expected of an agriculturist of this type that they would keep accounts. It is worth mentioning that witness Manibhai exh. 163 is not at all interested in the claimant. He himself was an agriculturist. He belongs to the same village. He would therefore naturally know about the productivity of the land and he would also know as to what yield a lemon tree would give year to year. In fact the learned Assistant Judge accepted the evidence of this witness. The learned Assistant Judge after accepting the evidence of this witness actually calculated and capitalised the income from crop and according to him the income would come to Rs. 6400. 00. He thereafter observed that that amount would be the market value per one vigha of the acquired land. The learned Assistant Judge observed as under:"i have worked out this rate by accepting the say of Manibhai Harmanbhai". Immediately thereafter the learned Assistant Judge fell into error because he referred to the award and referring to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer the next sentence in the judgment is as under:"the Land Acquisition Officer has in his award observed that the average paddy yeild per one acre was 60 maunds. So the say of this witness in the matter of crop produce appears to be exaggerated". Now therefore here the learned Assistant Judge thought that what was observed in the award by the Land Acquisition Officer was evidence and considering that to be evidence he believed that the evidence of Manibhai was exaggerated. That he did after accepting his evidence. Immediately thereafter he jumped to another conclusion. He immediately accepted the word of the claimant in regard to the fact that the land was possessing a good potentiality for building purpose. Thereafter the learned Assistant Judge observed as under:" I would therefore make a conjecture or guess work put the market value of the acquired land with its potentiality for its building purpose at Rs. 200- per one Acre". The evidence which he had had accepted would have brought about a different result but rejecting the evidence which he had accepted he chose to make a guess or conjecture work. 200- per one Acre". The evidence which he had had accepted would have brought about a different result but rejecting the evidence which he had accepted he chose to make a guess or conjecture work. This was bound to lead to a situation where there was bound to be not only an error but practically a chaotic situation which has arisen because of this judgment. This is so because at several stages the award has taken place of the evidence. If therefore one strictly goes by evidence the result would be entirely different. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 3 ) BEFORE we close we clearly state that we have considered the claim of the petitioner in regard to the land by which be bad claimed a sum of Rs. 41400. 00. That was the claim which he made in group A. Of course he divided this amount into two separate heads. But that would only mean that be calculated the capitalized value of lemon trees and after deducting that amount he valued the land which remained without trees. It could not be suggested that the land was acquired as if it had building potentiality and that by some evidence the correct market rate of the land which had building potentiality was arrived at. Unless that was done foundation which was necessary for the purpose of not awarding a separate sum for lemon trees as contemplated by The Collector of Thana v. Chaturbhai Radha Krishna 28 B. L. R. did not arise. This situation in the judgment has crept in because of loose drafting of the reference application and because of the learned Assistant Judge considered several portions of the award as evidence. If the drafting was prefect and the learned Assistant Judge had not fallen into error which he had fallen as discussed above the result would have been entirely different. Mofussil drafting can never be considered as a perfect drafting and no technical view could be taken on such drafting. Drafting is required to be construed broadly as understood by the claimant. He was a small agriculturist in a small village he had small piece of land he valued his land and trees in a particular way he went to the lawyer. Drafting is required to be construed broadly as understood by the claimant. He was a small agriculturist in a small village he had small piece of land he valued his land and trees in a particular way he went to the lawyer. Whatever he could explain ultimately that resulted in drafting which is the reference application That draft reference application could not be considered so strictly as to defeat the right claim of the claimant. Appeal dismissed: cross objection allowed. .