SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal by the State (the Spl. Land acquisition Officer, Hidkal Dam Project, hidkal), is directed against the award and decree dt, 28-3-1979 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Chikodi, at Hukkeri, in LAC no. 261 of 1978, on his file, awarding compensation at Rs. 6,000 per acre for 'bagayat' land, Rs. 4,000 per acre for 'jirayat' land, Rs. 14,415 for well, Rs. 600 for hut and Rs. 500 for fruit trees, in addition to interest and solatium. ( 2 ) THE learned High Court Government pleader challenged only one item, viz. , the compensation of Rs. 14,415 for the well. She submitted that in response to the notice issued under S. 9 of the Land acquisition Act, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the well, as is clearly noted in the award by the land Acquisition Officer and, as such, the learned Civil Judge could not award more. That is the only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the bar under s. 25 of Land Acquisition Act comes in only when the amount exceeds the total amount and not the amounts for individual items. She relied on a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High court in the case, Kampala Nageswara Rao v. Spl. Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition (1 ). ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that in that decision, his Lordship Umamaheswaram, J. , who spoke for the Bench, in para 35 of the judgment, has observed thus :"before leaving this item, we would observe that we have not omitted to take note of the fact that the appellants claimed before the Collector only at the rate of Rs. 40 per tree for the sapota, guava, citrus'and lime trees. But no point under S. 25 arises nor has been taken on behalf of the Government. The reason is that the words 'the amount so claimed in S. 25 mean the total amount claimed before the Collector and not any claim under any particular item or head comprised in the total amount. 22 Mad. LJ 379 (L); Secy, of state v. F. E. Dinshaw, AIR 1933 Sind 21 (R ). The total amount of compensation claimed by the appellants before the Collector far exceeds the amount allowed by us". 22 Mad. LJ 379 (L); Secy, of state v. F. E. Dinshaw, AIR 1933 Sind 21 (R ). The total amount of compensation claimed by the appellants before the Collector far exceeds the amount allowed by us". ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that the decision in question supports the view advanced before us by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant. But the learned High court Government Pleader strenuously argued before us that the expression eonominee in S. 25 (1), (2) and (3) of the land Acquisition Act would not support such construction. ( 6 ) S. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act reads :"rules as to amount of compensation:- (1) When a person interested has made a claim for 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 Dy commr. under S. 11. (2) When a person interested 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 Dy. Commr. (3) When a person interested has omitted for 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 Deputy commr. " ( 7 ) THUS, by reading the three sub sections together, it becomes clear that the amount awarded to the claimant by the court shall not exceed the amount claimed. The amount so claimed would mean the amount claimed for each individual item and not merely the total amount. If we are to interpret that the amount awarded shall not exceed the total amount claimed, then, in sub-sec. (2) of S. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was not necessary to say that the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Dy. Commr. If we are to interpret that the amount awarded shall not exceed the total amount claimed, then, in sub-sec. (2) of S. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was not necessary to say that the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Dy. Commr. ( 8 ) THE view finds support in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case, gobardhan Mahto v. State of Bihar (2), wherein his Lordship Chief Justice Chandrachud, who delivered the judgment for the Bench, has observed in para 8 of the judgment thus :"it is argued by the learned counsel that, at any rate, there was no justification for the High Court for reducing the compensation awarded for the well. The short answer to this contention Is to be found in the provisions of S. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. By subsec. (1) of that section, when an applicant makes a claim to compensation pursuant to a notice given to him under s. 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed. By sub-sec. (2) of S. 25, when the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the collector. It is common ground that in pursuance of the notice given under s. 9, the appellant contented himself by saying that there was a deep and wide well on the land. He did not ask for any specific amount as representing the value of the well. The learned District judge would appear to have overlooked the provisions of S. 25 (2) and in any case, his judgment does not show that he had come to the conclusion that the appellant was prevented by any sufficient reason from making a claim for compensation in respect of the well". ( 9 ) THIS would clearly indicate that even if the claimant omits to make a claim for a particular item, though he has made claim for the entire land, still it amounts to omission within the meaning of S. 25 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The analysis of the section given by his lordship would clearly indicate that the omission may be with regard to a parti, cular item. The analysis of the section given by his lordship would clearly indicate that the omission may be with regard to a parti, cular item. It need not necessarily be omission for all the items included. Even if there is omission for any of the items, it would still be an omission within the meaning of S. 25 (2) of the Land Acquisi. tion Act Similarly, the valuation men. Honed in S. 25 (1) of the said Act would be valuation for all the items individually and totally. For, even if there is no valuation for any particular item, it would still amount to omission of valuation of a particular item as referred to in S. 25 (2) of the Act. If we were to accept the interpretation put forward before us by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, it would amount to an omission, only if there ia no claim for all the items. In other words, if the claimant fails to claim total compensation, that view would be contrary to the view expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid decision. ( 10 ) IN the decision dealt with by the supreme Court of India, compensation for the land was asked, and no compensation asked by the claimant was certainly more. Even to, the Supreme Court of india held that the provisions ot S. 25 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act would apply. ( 11 ) THAT being so, we are satisfied that the current law, as ruled by the Supreme court of India, is that the valuation under s. 25 (1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition act refers to valuatiun of each item of claim made and not merely to the aggregate valuation given by the claimant. ( 12 ) IN the iastant case, it is no doubt true that there is no omission of valuation for any particular item. The claimant in response to the notice issued under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act has specifically mentioned in the claim statement that he shall be awarded Rs. 10,000 for the well. The question is Whether the Court is competent to award more in view of the fact that the aggregate amount demanded by him would not exceed if something more is awarded for the well. 10,000 for the well. The question is Whether the Court is competent to award more in view of the fact that the aggregate amount demanded by him would not exceed if something more is awarded for the well. In the view explained by the Supreme Court of India, it is obvious that the valuation means valuation for each item and not for the aggregate nor the total claim made. Hence, ws are of the considered view that when the claimant himself makes a claim of Rs, 10,000 for the well, it is not propel for the learned Civil Judge to enhance it beyond what the claimant demanded. in the instant case, the Civil Judge has awarded Rs. 14,415 for the well. But the claim made is only Rs. 10,000. ( 13 ) IN the result the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded for the well is reduced from Rs. 14,415 to Rs. 10,000, as demanded by the claimant. The rest of the award stands affirmed. No costs of this appeal. --- *** --- .