' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---The judgment and decree, dated 28-9-1992 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang have been assailed in this appeal which arises out of the following circumstances.
2. Land measuring 100 Kanals and 5 Marlas was acquired for construction of Khairwala Main Drain in village Jhang, Chak Shamali, Tehsil and District Jhang. This included land measuring 14 Kanals, 4 Marlas of respondent No,2, land measuring 1 Kanal, 8 Marlas exclusively owned by respondent No,1 and land measuring 60 Kanals and 9 Marlas owned by respondent No,1 and his brother Bashir Ahmed in equal shares. Said Bashir Ahmed did not claim any reference. These details have been taken from the notices issued under section 9 to the respondents. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (No,I) of 1894 was issued on 3-12-1981 as stated by the learned counsel for the parties. However, the date noted in the award is 3-6-1981. The learned counsel for the respondents explained that it was vide the corrigendum notification, dated 3-12-1981 that the land of the respondents were included in the notification under section 4. The award was announced on 2-6-1987. The learned Land Acquisition Collector assessed the Nal Chahi land @ Rs,11,000 per acre while the Banjar Qadeem land was assessed at the rate of Rs,5,500 per acre. 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest was also granted to the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the two respondents made a reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Collector with regard to the quantum of compensation on which the matter was referred to the Civil Court. In the said application they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs,46,000 per acre which was the estimated cost approved by the Board of Revenue. Parties led their .Evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Reference was answered by the learned trial Judge, vide his judgment, dated 28-9-1992. The letter, dated 15-5-1985 (Exh. A/2) of the Board of Revenue determining the estimated cost of the land in dispute as Rs,46,000 per acre was relied upon. This judgment has been assailed in this appeal.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the appellant contends that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had duly been served notices under section 9 of Act I of 1894 but did not make any claim for compensation before the learned Land Acquisition Collector and, therefore, by virtue of section 25(2) of the Act I of 1894, the Referee Court could not have granted compensation higher than the compensation determined by the learned Land Acquisition Collector. Reliance was placed on Collector, Peshawar District v. Sher Ahmad Khan and others (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Peshawar 193). His next contention is that approval of estimated cost by the Board of Revenue is only tentative but instead of considering the evidence produced in the case, the learned trial Court abdicated its jurisdiction in favour of the estimated cost approved by the Board of Revenue. His next grievance is that the evidence produced in the case was not at all considered. He next submits that the compound interest could not have been granted on the compensation awarded by the learned Referee Court.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents maintains that the objection based on section 25 of Act I of 1894 not having been raised before the learned Referee Court, cannot be entertained for the first time by this Court. He, however, maintains that by virtue of reference application under section 18,, requirements of section 25(2) of the Act (I) of 1894 were adequately satisfied. He submits that section 23 provides for guidelines for determination of compensation and read with section 15, it is within the jurisdiction of the Referee Court to determine compensation even if it was not claimed before the Collector in response to notice under section 9 of the Act. As far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, he strenuously relied on Exh.A/1 (the average sale price) according to which the sale price preceding one year from the date of Notification of section 4 for Sakni and agricultural land collectively was Rs,69,465.60 per acre. He contends that A.W.1 appeared and duly proved the statement prepared by him on the basis of the Revenue Record. Reliance was also placed on the testimony of the A.W.2, according to which, his land in the same Revenue estate was acquired and he was paid a compensation of Rs,50,000 per acre. He maintains that the view of the evidence produced in the case, the learned Referee Court was fully justified to act upon Exh.A/1. As far as, mutations (Exh.R.6 to Exh.R.10) produced on behalf of appellants are concerned, he contends that no person was examined to prove the contents thereof and these were not mentioned in the list of reliance. According to him these mutations were hardly sufficient to determine the market value of the property on the date of Notification under section 4. He places reliance on Muhammad Saeed and others v. Collector, Land Acquisition and others (2002 SCM R 407) to highlight the principles to determine compensation payable to the land owners which, inter alia, include unrebutted evidence, inflation, price-hike etc.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the evidence produced in the case has been examined. On behalf of the respondents-landowners, Muhammad Akram appeared as A.W.3 The Patwari was examined as A.W.1 while one Muhammad Siddique was examined as A.W.2. Documents Exh.A.1 and A.2 were also placed on the record. On behalf of the appellants notices issued under section 9 of Act I of 1894 were placed on record as Exh.R-1 and R/2, R/3 and notice issued by the learned Land Acquisition Collector for the date of announcement of the award on 2-6-1987 was produced. As Exh.R.4 Declaration under section 6 of the Act, 1894 which was published in the official Gazette on 9-9-1985 was exhibited as Exhs.R/5, R/6 to R/10 are five mutations of sale. No other evidence was produced by the parties.
6. It will be of an advantage to reproduce section 25:-- ",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 section 11. (The underlines were omitted by West Pakistan Ordinance No, 49 of 1969).
(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."
7. The provisions of section 25(2) of the aforesaid section show that claim to compensation is required to be made before the Collector pursuant to the notice given under section 9, failure or omission to make a claim for compensation before the learned Collector entails penal consequence i.e, that compensation to be awarded by the Court, shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector unless the Court permits to raise the claim before it for a sufficient reason. Provisions of subsection (3) of section 25, however, empower the Court to grant higher compensation than the compensation awarded by the Collector, but it is also subject to the condition that the omission to prefer claim before the Collector is condoned by the Court for a sufficient reason. The claim contemplated by section 25 is before the stage of reference by the Collector under section 18. Merely because the Referee Court entertains the reference and proceeds to decide it, it cannot be presumed that the Court had condoned the default under section 25(2). The provision is expressed in negative terms and on the basis of the language employed it is to be construed as mandatory, subject to the powers of the Referee Court to condone the omission.
8. Reference may be made to section 11 of Act I of 1894 which contemplates an inquiry by the Collector after notice under section 9 has been served on an interested person. The inquiry contemplated by the aforesaid section is not only in regard to the measurement of the land under acquisition but also as to the value of the land. In the absence of any claim as to quantum of compensation made before the Collector, the Collector has no occasion to adjudicate upon the claim of an interested person. Section 9(2) of the Act also contemplates that notice will require the interested persons to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation and their objections to the measurement. We have also noted that the provision of section 18 of the Act providing for a reference to the Collector is for determination by the Court the objection as to the measurement of the land of the interested persons, the amount of compensation, and the person to whom it is payable. The combined reading of sections 9, 11, 18 and 25 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that on receipt of notice, an interested person has to file his claim for compensation and has to specify the amount which he claims as compensation for the land and other interests. The stage of reference under section 18 is posterior to the announcement of the award. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that a reference application under section 18 met the requirements of section 25(2) is not acceptable.
9. Section 15 of the said Act provides that in determining compensation, the Court shall be guided by the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Act. These B provisions are to be read alongwith the provisions contained in section 9, 11, 18 and 25 and not in isolation. The contention that section 15 is not controlled by section 25 will render the provision of section 25 as redundant. It is settled principle of law that redundancy cannot be attributed to the Legislature. We have also noticed that section 25 has been placed in the Act after sections 9, 11, 15, 18 and 23. Therefore, determination of compensation by the Court is subject to the provisions of section 25 aforesaid.
10. We have kept in mind that penal provisions of section 25 can only be applied if a valid notice under section 9 was duly served on an interested landowner. The notices under section 9, addressed to the respondents, are on the record as Exh.R.1 to Exh.R.3 Muhammad Akram- respondent No,1, appeared as A.W.1 and admitted having received the notice. He also stated that notice was also received by Allah Ditta-respondent No,2 and he (Allah Ditta) had gone to the Collector. Even receipt of notice Exh.R.4, intimating the date of announcement of award was also admitted by A.W.3 Perusal of the notices Exh.R.1, Exh.R.2 and Exh. R.3 shows that not only the land of the respondents was clearly identified but they were also directed to appear before the Collector on 18-3-1987 and to submit their claim including claim for compensation. The award was announced on 2-6-1987 and, thus, the respondents had adequate notice to appear before the Collector and lodge their claim for compensation. We have, no doubt that valid notice under section 9 of the Act had duly been served on the respondents and, therefore, provisions of section 25(2) of the Act were fully applicable.
11. The provisions of section 25 aforesaid happened to be considered by superior Courts in some cases on which we have been able to lay our hands. The first is Hyderabad Development Authority and another v. Karam Khan Shoro (1985 SCM R 45). In the said case against the claim of land owners made before the Collector for a compensation of Rs,60,000 per acre, the learned Collector allowed a compensation of Rs,20,000 per acre. The Referee Court, however, enhanced the compensation to Rs,1,08,900 which was, however, reduced in appeal to Rs,70,000 per acre.
Explaining the provisions of section 25, the Honourable Supreme Court made the following observations:-- "The section provides for three classes of cases. The first clause of the section refers to the case where the applicant has made a claim for compensation pursuant to a notice given under section
9. In that case, the amount awarded to him by the Court i.e, by the Judge to whom the reference is made, shall not exceed the amount so claimed and at the same time it shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11. The second clause provides for the case where the applicant has refused to make such a claim or has omitted, without sufficient reason, to make such a claim. In such a case, the amount awarded by the Court, shall in no case, exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. It follows, therefore, that if without any sufficient reason he has refused to take action before the Collector when the award is made, he cannot afterwards ask the Court, to which the matter may be referred, to award more than the Collector has already done.
The third case is under clause (3) and that relates to cases when the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason to make such a claim. In such a case, the amount awarded to him by the Court, shall not be less than and may exceed the amount awarded by the Collector."
' However, in the above case, with the finding that the notice issued under section 9 was not in strict compliance thereof, the compensation determined by the Appellate Court was not disturbed.
12. Another case to be noted is Muhammad Sharif v. Afsar Textile Mills Ltd. And another (1985 SCM R 1181). The compensation in the said case was determined for different categories of land by the learned Land Acquisition Collector after considerating the claim of the interested landowners. In a reference application the landowner claimed compensation at a flat rate of Rs,6,400 per acre without reference to the classification. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Collector. During the hearing of the reference the landowners sought enhancement of the amount of compensation and instead of the flat rate of Rs,6,400 per acre claimed Rs,100 per Marla (Rs, 16,000 per acre for the rural land) and Rs,.500 per Marla (Rs,80,000 per acre for the urban land). The learned Referee Court allowed this amendment on the ground that this was the amount claimed by the applicant in response to the notice under section 9 of the Act. The beneficiary of the acquisition, assailed the said order allowing amendment in the reference application which was allowed by this Court against which the matter was taken before the Honourable Suprethe Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after surveying the case-law dismissed his appeal and made the following observations:-- "Reading sections 9, 11, 18 and 21 together what is imperative is that the claimant must ' give out the particulars of the claim as to the nature of the interest and the amount of compensation desired for it. In other words he should fully present his case before the Collector as this in terms is his pleading to which he remains confined till the decision of the Collector in regard to the compensation payable. Necessarily, therefore, he is precluded from making out a fresh case either by way of supplementary claim to compensation or otherwise at the stage of judicial determination. This is what is emphasized by Curgenven, J., in Secretary of State v. C.R. Subramania Ayyar AIR 1950 Mad. 576, and I see much substance in it as the pleadings are a foundation for the grounds on which an objection is taken to the award while seeking a judicial determination under section 18 of the Act. In effect, therefore, it alone becomes a matter referred under section 18 of the Act and the Court has no power to determine or consider anything beyond it."
' It may also be observed in the said case, inter alia, a judgment of this Court in the Secretary of State v. Tikka Jagtar Singh (AIR 1936 Lahore 733) was noted with approval.
13. In Mrs. Gunj Khatoon and another v. The Province of Sindh through Secretary, Revenue Department, Karachi and another (1987 SCM R 2084), the compensation assessed by the learned Collector for land and garden was enhanced by the Referee Court i.e, the learned Sindh High Court.
In appeal, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was slightly modified. The Honourable Supreme Court found that before the learned Collector the landowners had claimed Rs,10,000 per acre and even though they were entitled to a compensation of an amount in excess of Rs,10,000 it could not be granted to them and made the following observations:-- "According to the provisions of section 9 of the Act the claimant is required to submit, inter alia, his claim with regard to the question of compensation payable to him and the claim made in response to the notice issued under section 9 cannot be modified during the course of the proceedings. This rule has recently been reiterated in Muhammad Sharif v. Afsar Textile Mills Ltd.
1985 SCM R 1181 where the dictum of the Lahore High Court in State v. Tikka Jagtar Singh AIR 1936 Lahore 733 to the effect under section 9 of the Act an objector must give particulars of his claim and if an item is not specified therein he will not be awarded compensation on that score. The basis for decision was also the sanctity of the claim preferred by the objector as binding on him was approved by this Court and it was observed that section 9 requires the claimant/ objector to fully present his case before the Collector which will be deemed to be his nleadines and that he shall be confined to them throughout the proceedings. The provisions to section 25 are also to the same effect."
14. In Haji Muhammad Yaqoob and another v. Collector, Land Acquisition/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar (1997 SCM R 1670), the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed compensation at the rate of Rs,7,335.60 per Kanal. It was enhanced by the Referee Court to Rs,25,000 (Rs,2,00,000 per acre) per Kanal and the first appeal was dismissed on the ground that the landowners had themselves claimed. Rs,2,00,000 per acre before the learned Collector. The Honourable Supreme Court noted that there were two references before the Court. In one the claim for compensation was at the rate of Rs,2,00,000 per acre while in other it was at the rate of Rs,10,00,000 per acre and while dismissing the appeal, the learned Appellate Court did not notice the contents of the second reference application. Accordingly, in the appeal in which the landowners had claimed Rs,2,00,000 per acre was dismissed while appeal of other landowners was, however, allowed. In para.9 of the judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court considered section 25 of the Act and made the following observations:-- "Principles underlying section 25 of the Act were considered at some length by this Court in the case of Mrs. Gunj Khatoon and another v. The Province of Sindh through Secretary, Revenue Department, Karachi and another (1987 SCM R 2084), as follows:-- "23. According to the provisions of section 9 of the Act the claimant is required to submit, inter alia, his claim with regard to the question of compensation payable to him and the claim made in response to the notice issued under section 9 cannot be modified during the course of the proceedings. This rule has recently been reiterated in Muhammad Sharif v. Afsar Textile Mills Ltd.
1985 SCM R 1181 where the dictum of the Lahore High Court in State v. Tikka Jagtar Singh AIR 1936 Lah. 733 to the effect 'that under section 98 of the Act an objector must give particulars of his claims and if an item is not specified therein he will not be awarded compensation on that score.
The basis for decision was also the sanctity of the claim preferred by the objector as binding on him was approved by this Court and it was observed that section 9 requires the claimant/ objector to fully present his case before the Collector which will be deemed to be his pleadings and that he shall be confined to them throughout the proceedings'. The provisions of section 25 are also to the same effect."
15. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments, clearly is, that claim for compensation has to be made by interested landowners in response to the notice under section 9 which is a subject-matter of the determination in an ,inquiry under section 11 and ultimately by the Court under section 18. Unless, therefore, omission to prefer claim for compensation is condoned by the Court, the interested landowner cannot seek enhancement of compensation exceeding the amount awarded by the Collector.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the objection not having been taken before the learned Referee Court, cannot be considered by this Court. As admitted by A.W.3, he did not even attend the proceedings before Collector in response to the notice under section 9, and, therefore, there is no question of preferring claim for compensation before the learned Collector. As far as respondent No,2 is concerned, A.W.3 stated that he attended the proceedings before the learned Collector. However, according to the award, the landowners had appeared before the Collector and had accepted the measurement of the field staff to be correct. Allah Ditta did not himself appear in the witness-box to assert that claim for compensation was preferred by him before the learned Collector. We have also seen the reference application. It does not contain any averment that any claim for compensation was preferred before the learned Collector and that it was not properly adjudicated.
From the perusal of the record, it is manifestly clear that the two respondents did not prefer any claim before the learned Collector in response to the notice under section 9. Therefore, the effect of this omission is pure question of law going to the root of the jurisdiction of the learned Referee Court to enhance the compensation from Rs,11,000 per acre to Rs,46,000 per acre.
17. A case directly in point is Punjab State v. Messrs Lachhman Dass and Sons (AIR 1964 Punjab 68).
In the said case no claim for compensation was made before the learned Collector in response to the notice under section 9. The Collector assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs,85 Biswa. On a reference under section 18 it was ehanced to Rs,125 Biswa.
' The respondents before the High Court asserted that they were entitled to a compensation of Rs,400 per Biswa . An objection based on section 25 of the Act was for the first time raised before the High Court. While interpreting section 25, the said learned Court made the following obser,ations:-- "Section 25 is mandatory in terms and envisages three contingencies after notice under section 9 has been issued. The first is that where a claim has been made the compensation cannot be enhanced by the Court in excess of what is claimed. The second is that where there is a refusal to make a claim or there is an omission without sufficient cause to do so the compensation cannot exceed the amount awarded by the Collector and the third is that where the omission to make a claim is justified for sufficient cause the compensation may exceed the amount awarded by the Collector but here, as in the case of the first contingency, there is no limitation that it cannot exceed the amount for there is no amount claimed and in the very nature of things none could be claimed."
' After recording the aforesaid observations the said learned Court relied on the following passage from State v. Krishna Pilai Ramakrishne Pillai (ILR 1955 Tray-Co 174): "The provisions of the section quoted above are mandatory. It prescribes a penalty for the omission unless it is properly accounted for and on the language of the section it is the party who wants to be exempted from the penal consequences prescribed by it that should move the Court to permit him to make the claim for enhanced compensation. The wording of the section would seem to us to admit of no other construction. Decided cases support this view: Secretary of State for India v.
Gobind Lal Bysak, 12 Cal. WN 263, Secretary of State for India v. Bishan Dat, ILR 33 All. 376, Narain Dat, Superintendent of Dehra Dun ILR 37 All. 69 (AIR 1914 All. 445); Ram Prasad v. Collector of Aligarh 40 Ind. Cas. 274: (AIR 1917 All. 52). In Birbai v. Collector of Moradabad, AIR 1927 All. 183 the Allahabad High Court followed the two earlier decisions of that Court mentioned above. Certain other cases, go further and hold that the claim in answer to the notice under section 9(2) should be a specific claim, a claim which states in rupees the value the claimant placed upon his property. Orient Bank of India Limited v. Secy. Of State ILR 7 Lah.416 (AIR 1926 Lah. 401) and Subbanna v. District Labour Officer 1930 Mad. WN 373: (AIR 1930 Mad. 618)."
18. As far as entertainment of objection based on section 25 by the High Court is concerned, the argument of the landowners was repelled with the following observations:-- "The next question that requires to be settled is whether the objection on the basis of section 25 of the Act should be deemed to have been waived by the State and, therefore, the State is not entitled to raise this objection at this stage. Section 25 prescribes rules as to amount of compensation. I have already held that this provision is mandatory and there is no option left with the Court but to give effect to it. The provisions of section 25 really limit the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter of enhancement of compensation and thus there can be no question of waiver of these provisions. A Court cannot do what the statute expressly forbids. Neither by consent nor by waiver the mandatory provisions of the statute can be either modified or waived. Therefore, in my view no question of waiver can arise. It is a statutory duty which is cast on the Court and effect must be given to it. It is not a benefit which is conferred on any party."
19. The Punjab High Court, however, noted that from the record it was not clear that there was sufficient reason for the respondents in not making the claim for compensation before the Collector pursuant to the notices under section 9. The said aspect was not considered and examined by the trial Court. The said learned Court thought it fit and proper to remand the case to the learned Referee Court to provide an opportunity to the landowners to show that they were prevented by a sufficient cause to prefer a claim for compensation before the Collector. The course adopted by the learned Punjab High Court is just, fair ands proper and we intend to follow the same.
20. There is merit in the contention of K the learned Additional Advocate-General that the learned Referee Court did not consider, the evidence and solely relied on the approval of the estimated cost by the BOR (Exh.A.2) which was only tentative and the learned Collector was required to determine compensation on the basis of the evidence produced in the case keeping in view the guidelines indicated in sections 23 and 24 of Act I of 1894 as interpreted by the superior Courts.
Reference may be made to Muhammad Saeed and others (supra) (2002 SCM R 407). However, we have noticed that adequate evidence is not otherwise available to render satisfactory judgment.
The respondents landowners relied on the average sale price for the period from 2-12-1980 to 3-12- 1981 (Exh.A.1). The said document is based on 95 mutations out of which 6 mutations relate to the agricultural land and the remaining 89 mutations relate to "Sakni" land. The total area involved in the 6 mutations at Sr. Nos.4, 17, 18, 33, 77 and 79 of Exh.A.1 is 72 Kanals and 13 Marlas sold for a total price of Rs,4,740,88.79. The average sale price of agriculture land, according to Exh.A.1, comes to approximately Rs,52,672 per acre. We will like to add note of caution. This statement was not accompanied with the mutations referred to therein. In the mutation at Sr. No,77 of Exh.A.1 agricultural land measuring 17 Kanals, 11 Marlas was sold for Rs,62,522. The mutation was sanctioned on 26-9-1981. However, another Mutation (No, 4601) was also sanctioned on the same day. The area invoiVed in this mutation was 18 Kanals, 9 Marlas and was showp to have been sold for Rs,3,50,000.
' The difference of price of the same category of land in the two mutations sanctioned on the same day was highly disproportionate particularly, when in both the mutations the area sold was the same except that in case of Mutation No,4601, the area sold was 18 Marlas more than the area sold vide Mutation No,4599. It is also not on the record as to whether these mutations were sanctioned on the basis of the oral sale or were based on registered transaction. As far as the five out of these six mutations are concerned, the average sale price per acre comes to Rs,17,776 approximately. The appellants had placed on record mutations of sale Exh.R.6 to Exh.R.10. All these were based on registered sale transactions between the period from 2-12-1980 to 3-12-1981, except Exh.R.8 in which case the registered sale had taken place on 10-9-1980. The area involved in other four mutations was 39 Kanals, 5 Marlas and the sale consideration was Rs,41,000. The average sale price on the basis of these mutations comes to approximately to Rs,1,100 per Kanal or Rs,8,800 per acre. We may like to observe that location of the land acquired is of paramount importance. The land abutting a main metalled road, although agriculture in nature, may be of higher value and have better potential than the land situated elsewhere. None of the parties produced any evidence to show the location of the land or its potential. We have also noticed that according to Exh.A./1 even "Sakni" land was sold at the rate of Rs,3,500 per Kanal at (Sr. No,62), Rs,3,000 per Kanal (Sr. No, 32) and at Rs,100 per Marla (Sr. No, 37) of Exh. A.1. According to the aforesaid transactions even the rate of "Sakni" land in the Revenue estate in some cases respectively was Rs,28,000 per acre, Rs,24,000 per acre and Rs,16,000 per acre. In some cases it was much more. A.W.2 claimed that he was paid compensation for his land acquired in the said Revenue estate at the rate of Rs,50,000 per acre but no document was placed on record to substantiate his oral assertion, although it could be produced.
21. For what has been stated above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree, dated 28-9-1992 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang are set aside and the case is remanded to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law. It may be observed that question of grant of compensation in excess of the amount granted by the Collector will only arise if the learned Referee Court is satisfied that there was sufficient reasons within the contemplation of sections 25(2) and 25(3) for the respondents not to have claimed specific amount of compensation before the learned Collector in response to the notices under section 9. The respondents will be allowed an opportunity for the purpose and if need be an issue may be framed and decided first before proceeding further in the matter. The said question shall be determined by the learned Referee Court by passing a speaking order and in case the respondents are able to overcome the constraints of section 25, he will proceed to determine the compensation in accordance with law.
The parties will be allowed an opportunity to produce further evidence. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.