JUDGMENT Bhaskaran, Ag.C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned Subordinate Judge of Mavelikkara in L.A.R. No. 88 of 1978, which was a reference under S.20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. Two points have been raised in this appeal, which pertains to the acquisition of 180 ares of land in Survey No. 262/2 (Re-survey No. 626/11, pursuant to a notification under S.3(1) of the Act, dated 3rd June 1975. 2. The first objection raised by the Advocate General, who appeared for the appellant State, is that inasmuch as admittedly the respondent not having made any claim in response to the notice under S.9(3) of the Act, he is precluded from claiming any amount; and the Court from awarding anything more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Judge is seen to have discussed the question in para 6 of the Judgment under appeal, wherein it is stated as follows : "From the notes of award produced by the Land Acquisition Officer in this Court it is clear that the land value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer long before the date of S.9(3) notice and the rates fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer were approved by the District Collector on 6th February 1976. The claimant when examined as P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that when he appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer in response to S.9(3) notice, he was told by the Land Acquisition Officer that the value had been already fixed and that he could not award a larger compensation. In the notes of award the Land Acquisition Officer has also stated very vaguely that the claimant has put forward a claim for enhanced rate of compensation without specifying the rate claimed by the claimant. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to excuse the claimant in his failure to make a specific claim of compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer." 3. The Advocate General submitted that even in cases where the delay in making the claim was excused, in the absence of a specific claim the Court would not be justified in awarding enhanced compensation. We think there is a little confusion regarding the position. The Advocate General submitted that even in cases where the delay in making the claim was excused, in the absence of a specific claim the Court would not be justified in awarding enhanced compensation. We think there is a little confusion regarding the position. By virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of S.2, what is being excused by the Court for reasons to be stated is not the delay in filing the Statement in response to S.9(3) notice, but the failure to make any claim. In that view, we do not think that there is any force in the contention advanced by the Advocate General that even where by virtue of S.27(3) of the Act, the Court excuses the failure to make a statement in response to S.9(3) of the Act, there should be a specific claim. This requirement, according to us, cannot be read into that section. 4. It was then contended that the land value awarded at Rs. 1,500 per acre was much higher than what was warranted. It was submitted again that the respondent had not made any specific claim, and therefore, award of enhanced compensation was unwarranted. The Court below has based its decision on Ext. A-1 judgment in L.A.R. No. 29 of 1974, in which as against an award of Rs. 578 per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer for similar land, similarly situated, acquired for the same purpose under the same notification, Rs. 1,500 was given by the Court. In this case, where Rs. 611 per acre was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the award of Rs. 1,500 per acre, as was in the case of Ext. A-1 judgment, was justified as the property acquired in this case was surrounded by important offices, was a garden land full of yielding coconut trees and arecanut trees, lying at a distance of 100 feet only from the public road. Ext. A-1 property, on the other hand, was a dry land for which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value at Rs. 578 per acre while he fixed value for the land acquired in the present case at Rs. 611. 5. We do not find anything wrong in the approach made by the Court below. After all, the amount involved in the appeal is Rs. 1, 600.20 only. 578 per acre while he fixed value for the land acquired in the present case at Rs. 611. 5. We do not find anything wrong in the approach made by the Court below. After all, the amount involved in the appeal is Rs. 1, 600.20 only. In the written statement filed by the Land Acquisition Officer before the Court below, no contention that there was failure on the part of the respondent to make a claim in response to S.9(3) notice was raised. In the result, we dismiss the appeal, without any order as to costs. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced, the Advocate General made an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not think that any substantial question of law of general importance, which requires to be decided by the Supreme Court, is involved in this case; hence leave applied for is declined.