1. A reference was made by the Collector to the District Judge of Moradabad under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, being moved to do so by a person in whose favour an award was made by the Collector. The learned Judge fixed the award at the amount fixed by the Collector on the ground that the applicant had failed to make any claim after public notice under Section 9 of the Act, and therefore, the District Judge was precluded from making an award exceeding the amount fixed by the Collector under Section 25(2).
2. Birbal, on whose application reference was made to the learned District Judge, has appealed to this Court. It appears that public notice under Section 9(2) was given as to the particulars of the land needed and calling upon persons interested to appear before the Collector. This notice was issued on 17th March 1922. Another notice was personally served on Birbal on the 26th April 1922. The date fixed for the hearing before the Collector was 8th May 1922. It is argued here on behalf of the appellant that the notice served on him was not a legal notice because it did not allow 15 days' time after service of the notice to appear before the Collector. We do not think that this rule as to time extends to personal notice served under Clause (3). It is stated in Clause (2) of Section 9 that a person interested in the land shall be required to appear personally, or by agent before the Collector at a time (not being earlier than 15 days after the publication of the notice) and place mentioned in the notice. Such a provision is not repeated in Clause (3) of Section 9.
3. In the present case public notice was given more than six weeks prior to the date fixed for hearing of applications by the Collector. The applicant had sufficiently long personal notice to enable him to appear before the Collector. We are of opinion that the public notice and the notice served on him personally under Section 9 were valid notices. The provisions of Section 25(2) have been enforced by this Court in Secretary of State v. Bishan Dutt  33 All. 376 and in Narain Dutt v. Superintendent of Dehra Dun  37 All. 69. It was not argued here that the appellant had sufficient reason to make a claim under Section 11. It is true that the District Judge did not specifically consider this matter but obviously no sufficient reason as would be allowed by a District Court exists.
4. We are of opinion that the view of law taken by the lower Court is correct and dismiss this appeal with costs.