Judgment BRISHKETU SARAN SINHA, J. 1. This appeal by the awardee is directed against the judgment dated 27th July, 1979, and the award and decree dated 6th August, 1979, of the Special Judge (Land Acquisition) Hajipur, in Land Acquisition Case No. 28 of 1978, which arose out of a reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 1, Gandak Project, Muzaffarpur. 2. The relevant facts are that by a notification under S.4 of the Act dated 20th September, 1974, published in the gazette on 1st January, 1975, an area of 0.66 acre about 15 kathas of plot No. 32 in village Yusufpur within Hajipur Municipality was notified for acquisition for construction of store house for the Gandak Project. Subsequently the Collector under the Act awarded compensation to the awardee at the rate of Rs. 1200.00 per katha which amounted to Rs. 17028/- as compensation. He further awarded Rs. 163/- for trees and the statutory solatium of Rs. 2578/-. The total amount awarded by the Collector was Rs. 19,769/-. The awardee claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000.00 per katha. He, accordingly, claimed the price at that rate to be Rs. 76722/- at the market value plus the solatium minus the amount drawn under protest. It may be mentioned that the notification under S.6 had been made on 10th Feb. 1976, which was published in the gazette on 1st March, 1976. 3. Both parties in the reference led evidence in support of their respective claims on a consideration of which the learned Special Judge held that the fair market price of the land acquired was Rs. 6250.00 per katha but further held that as the awardee had not made a claim under S.9 of the Act, he was defarred from making any claim higher than that given by the Collector in view of S.25 of the Act. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the reference under S.25 of the Act as he was not entitled to claim any amount in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. 4. In support of this appeal Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh submitted that the learned Special Judge erred in law in dismissing the claim of the awardee on the ground that it was hit by S.25 of the Act. 4. In support of this appeal Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh submitted that the learned Special Judge erred in law in dismissing the claim of the awardee on the ground that it was hit by S.25 of the Act. He further submitted that the awardee was entitled, on the materials on record, to a compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000.00 per katha and not at the rate of Rs. 6250.00 per katha as held by the learned Special Judge. 5. It is not in dispute that the award by the Collector was made on 9th March, 1966 and notice was issued to the appellant under S.9 of the Act in which he was directed to file objection, if any, to the award by 22nd March, 1966. This notice under S.9 was served on Bharath Singh (A. W. 17) on 12th March, 1966 by Shankar Prasad (O.W. 6). The appellant denied having received any such notice. Submission of Mr. Singh is that, in the circumstances of the case, it must be held that notice under S.9 was not served on the appellant and, accordingly, he was not debarred under S.25 of the Act from claiming a higher rate of compensation. 6. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel it would be relevant to quote both Ss.9 and 25 of the Act. S.9 reads thus :- "9.- Notice to persons interested :- (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 stale 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 Section 8. The Collector may in any case requires such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. The Collector may in any case requires 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 and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or for agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate. (4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and registered under Part III of the Indian Post Office Act, 1866." Sec.25 runs as follows : - "25. Rules as to amount of compensation : - (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 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 under Sec.11. (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. (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." By reading these two sections together it is obvious that if a person who is entitled to a notice under S.9 has not made any claim in excess of the award made by the Collector within the time as specified under S.9 then, under the penal provisions of S.25(2), the Judge to whom the reference has been made is forbidden to consider any further claim made by the person concerned in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. In other words, it appears on the face of it, that where a person has not laid claim under S.9 after the service of notice on him, the court is forbidden from granting to such a person any claim higher than that awarded by the Collector. There does not seem to be any doubt that sub-ss. (2) and (3) of S.9 are not very artistically engrafted. There seems to be scope for confusion because of the words such notice in the beginning of sub-s. (2) and also serve notice to the same effect in sub-s. (3) of S.9. 7. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh has cited a number of decisions with regard to the interpretation given to S.9 in the context when the provisions of S.25 have to be applied. For the sake of convenience I will refer to them in their chronological order. The first case is of Tara Prasad Chaliha V/s. Secy, of State, AIR 1930 Cal 471. In that case notice under S.9 dated 3rd Feb. 1926, was served on the claimants brother and he was asked to show cause on 24th Feb. 1926. Subsequently, a notice was served on the claimant himself in which fifteen days clear notice was not given. The question was whether the provisions of S.9 had been complied with in order to apply the penal provisions of Sec.25 of the Act. It was held that notice on the brother was no notice under S.9 and the notice on the claimant also did not give fifteen clear days notice and hence the provisions of S.9 had not been strictly followed as regards service of notice and, therefore, the bar of S.25 would not apply. 8. It was held that notice on the brother was no notice under S.9 and the notice on the claimant also did not give fifteen clear days notice and hence the provisions of S.9 had not been strictly followed as regards service of notice and, therefore, the bar of S.25 would not apply. 8. In the case of District Labour Officer, Amalapuram V/s. V. V. Sastri, AIR 1931 Mad 50 the aforesaid decision of a Bench of the Calcutta High Court was noticed and it was observed as follows :- "No particular reasons are given, but in the cirucmstances and having regard to the fact that if there is any real dubiety in interpretation in matters of procedure like that, the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the party, we follow the interepretation of the phrase given by the learned Judges in Calcutta." It was further pointed out in that case that in order to avert further difficulties of this kind in future, it would be wise if the acquiring officers give more than fifteen days clear notice in the notice under S.9. In this case the notice was served on the claimant on the 19th of Aug. 1929, and it was directed that he should appear on the 3rd September, 1929. It was held that it was not fifteen days clear notice. 9. The next case on the point is of V. K. Durga V/s. District Collector, Krishna District, AIR 1971 Andh Pra 310. In this case a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that when fifteen days notice is contemplated under S.9(1) of the Act it is difficult to hold that the same requirement need not apply to the notice to an occupier of the land. It was observed that the words "to the same effect" occurring in sub-sec.(3) of S.9 are important and it shows that the notice should be of the same nature as contemplated by sub-ss. (1) and (2). Therefore, it was reasonable to hold that the words "to the same effect" take in the requirement of fifteen days notice as provided by the earlier subsection. 10. In the case of Spl. (1) and (2). Therefore, it was reasonable to hold that the words "to the same effect" take in the requirement of fifteen days notice as provided by the earlier subsection. 10. In the case of Spl. Land Acquisition Officer V/s. S.P. Patel, AIR 1974 Kant 74, a Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that the burden of proving that a valid notice complying with the requirements of S.9 has been served on the claimant is on the Land Acquisition Officer. Where it has not been established that the notice served on the claimant is one which complied with the requirement of a valid notice under S.9, the bar of S.25(2) is not applicable. 11. In the case of Lal Saheb Nabin Chandra Bhani Deo V/s. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 Orissa 126 Ray, J. held that unless proper notice under S.9(3) of the Act is served on the claimants, they cannot be debarred under S.25(2) to make claim for higher compensation and the notice under S.9(3) must give fifteen clear days notice to the claimants. 12. In the case of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram V/s. A. N. Damodara Mudaliar, AIR 1978 Mad 201 a Bench of the Madras High Court held that reading Ss.9(2) and 9(3) together, the intendment of the prescription and mandate in Section 9(2) is to see that the notices under S.9(2) and 9(3) should also be served on the persons affected and there ought to be a date, to be reckoned for purposes of calculating fifteen days time available to the claimants for preferring their objection under the above sub-section. The prescription in S.9(2) of the Act read in conduction with the well-known principles of natural public service requires that it is the date of service of the statutory notice which would be relevant to consider whether the subsequent conduct of the addressee was in accordance with the statute or not. 13. In the case of State of Bihar V/s. S. K. Thakkar, AIR 1981 Patna 81 a Bench of this Court held that in order to non-suit a claimant for enhanced compensation on the ground of want of objection under S.9, it is obligatory that the notice under S.9 must have been served on the claimant and in the absence of material to show that the notice under S.9 had been so served, the bar of S.25 of the Act cannot be applied. 14. Thus, on a consideration and appreciation of the aforesaid decisions of the various High Courts and the aforesaid two sections of the Act it seems obvious to me that as S.25(2) of the Act is penal in nature, the provisions of S.9(3) of the Act have got to be strictly complied with. Further, S.9(3) requires that the notice should be served on the person concerned or on his agent authorised to receive notice on his behalf and such notice must give fifteen days clear notice to the person concerned to lay his objections before the penal provisions of S.25(2) of the Act can be applied. 15. I have also noticed earlier that in the Karnataka case it has further been held that the burden of proving that valid notice complying with the requirements of S.9 has been served on the claimant is on the Land Acquisition Officer. In the case of the State of Bihar V/s. Anant Singh, AIR 1964 Patna 83 it appears to have been held that the evidence with regard to the service of notice under S.9 has to be proved by the Land Acquisition Officer. In para 19 of the judgment it has been observed : "Moreover, the evidence given on behalf of the appellant as to service of notice under Section 9 of the Act is not at all sufficient to prove that valid notice had been served as contemplated by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9". Therefore, it is also obvious that the onus of proof that notices in accordance with the provisions of S.9(3) have been served is on the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector concerned in order to raise the plea of the bar under S.25(2) of the Act. In this context, in the case of Nitai Dutt V/s. Secretary of State, AIR 1924 Patna 608 Chief Justice Dawson Miller with whom Foster, J. agreed, held that the finding that notice under S.9 has been served on the brother of the appellant was not enough and it has further to be seen whether the claimant had authorise his brother to appear on his behalf as provided under S.9(3) of the Act. 16 Having stated the law on the point, it is now necessary to consider whether in the facts of the instant case the learned Special Judge was right in holding that notice under S.9(3) had been validly served on the claimant. I have already pointed out above that the notice was served on Bharat Singh, a co-sharer of the claimant, on 12th March, 1976, although the notice was dated 9th March, 1976, and by that notice the appellant was directed to appear and file his objection by 22nd March, 1976. Therefore, on the face of it, fifteen days clear notice had not been given to the appellant.Moreover, I have pointed out that under S.9(3) notice has to be served on the claimant himself or an agent so authorised by him. I have also pointed out that as early as in the year 1924 this Court, had held that notice served on a brother of the claimant is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of S.9(3) in the absence of any material that the brother was authorised on behalf of the claimant. In the instant case, the learned Special Judge has held that as Bharat Singh was a co-sharer of the claimant, therefore it was a valid service of notice. It cannot be so unless there was any material on the record to show that Bharat Singh had the authority to receive notice on behalf of the claimant. There is no such material. Accordingly, service of notice on Bharat Singh was no service of notice on the claimant as contemplated under S.9(3) of the Act. 17. In the reference to the Special Judge it has not been stated that notice had been validly served on the claimant under S.9(3) of the Act while in his petition of reference under S.18 of the Act the claimant has specifically stated in the sub-para of para 1 of his application that notice under S.9 of the Act was never served upon the appellant and the valuation fixed by the opposite party was exparte and arbitrary. I have already pointed but above that in order to raise the plea of bar of S.25(2) of the Act the onus is on the land acquisition authorities to establish that valid notice under S.9(3) had been served. I have already pointed but above that in order to raise the plea of bar of S.25(2) of the Act the onus is on the land acquisition authorities to establish that valid notice under S.9(3) had been served. In this case this onus has not been discharged and on the evidence on the record I have already held that valid notice under S.9(3) had not been served on the appellant. Therefore, the finding of the trial court that valid notice under S.9(3) of the Act had been served on the claimant must be set aside and it must be held, in the circumstances of the case, that notice under S.9(3) of the Act had not been served on the appellant and, therefore, he was not debarred in making a claim higher than that awarded by the Collector. 18. The next question that falls for consideration in this case is whether there is any occasion to interfere with the finding of the learned Special Judge who has held that the appellant was entitled to claim the price of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 6250.00 per katha or it should be Rs. 10,000.00 per katha as claimed by the appellant. In support of his case there is the oral evidence that in view of the proposed construction of the bridge over the river Ganga, connecting Hajipur with Patna, the value of the land has gone up in the city of Hajipur and admittedly the land acquired is within the Hajipur municipal area. The appellant who has examined himself as A.W. 20 has also stated that his land was valuable and that he had irrigation facilities and was earning an income of about Rupees Ten to Eleven thousand per year from the aforesaid land. He has also filed a number of documents with regard to the price of the land concerned Exhibit 3 is a sale deed dated 22nd Dec., 1973 which has been proved by A.W.3 and in that the price is Rs. 4000.00 per katha. Exhibit 3/b which has been proved by A.W. 12 and is a registered sale deed dated 23rd Nov., 1973, shows Rs. 8500.00 as the price of 1 katha 14 dhurs of land. Exhibit 3/c, a registered sale deed dated 25th Jan, 1974, proved by A.W. 13, shows the price of 171/2 dhurs of land as Rs. 8000.00 which would work out to Rs. 8500.00 as the price of 1 katha 14 dhurs of land. Exhibit 3/c, a registered sale deed dated 25th Jan, 1974, proved by A.W. 13, shows the price of 171/2 dhurs of land as Rs. 8000.00 which would work out to Rs. 10.000.00 per katha. Exhibit 3/a which is a registered sale deed dated 7th June, 1975 arid which has been proved by A.W.15 shows the sale price as Rs. 15,000.00 per katha. A.W. 10 in his evidence with regard to Exhibit 3/a has only stated that the land is in village Yusufpur itself. It does not show what is the location of the land as compared to the land of the appellant. From none of these exhibits or from the evidence adduced is it possible to connect the locality of the land acquired with the locality of the lands sold. In such a situation it is not possible to hold on the evidence of the appellant that the land should have been valued at Rs. 10,000.00 per katha. 19. On behalf of the respondent only two sale deeds have been exhibited and they are Exhibits B and B/1. Exhibit is a registered sale deed dated 9th Oct. 1973 by which 17 kathas 16 dhurs of land were sold for Rs. 9000/-. This was much before the period of acquisition and, as the learned Judge has held that it does not furnish any standard for valuing the land. Exhibit B/1 is a registered sale deed dated 15th May, 1975 under which 17 dhurs of land were sold for Rs. 1000/-. The locality is again not clear and it is not possible to determine as to in what circumstances this sale was made and of what type of land. In the circumstances, Exhibits B and B/1 also cannot be of any help in determining the market value. An argument was also advanced on behalf of the appellant that Exhibits B and B/1 were not admissible in evidence. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider this question in the instant case. 20. However, on consideration of the circumstances and materials on the record, I do not think that there is any occasion to interfere with the finding of the learned Special Judge with regard to the valuation of the land. 21. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider this question in the instant case. 20. However, on consideration of the circumstances and materials on the record, I do not think that there is any occasion to interfere with the finding of the learned Special Judge with regard to the valuation of the land. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and it is held that the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6250.00 per katha as held by the learned Special Judge along with the statutory compensation of 15 per cent on the total value together with 61/2 per cent per annum interest on the balance amount from the date that the reference was made. The appellant is also held entitled to costs throughout. BINODANAND SINGH, J. 22 I agree.