1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Municipal Board of Bareilly. The defendants have obtained possession of certain land, found to be the property of plaintiff No. 2, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894). The question of the amount of compensation due to the plaintiffs, or either of them, is still pending in the Court of the District Judge on a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. That question has not yet been disposed of and is not in issue in the case now before us. The plaintiffs have come into Court alleging that the proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act were void by reason of irregularity, and they seek accordingly to be put back into possession of the land. The learned Subordinate Judge of Bareilly has held that there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act and that the plaintiffs' suit must fail. In the memorandum of appeal to this Court an objection is taken to the procedure adopted in the Court below, which has no force in the view which we take of the case as a whole. It is sought also to raise a question as to whether the two plaintiffs, or only plaintiff No. 2, are the owners of the land in suit. We are content to say that on the evidence it is sufficiently clear that the plaintiff No. 1 has parted with all rights in the land in question in favour of the plaintiff No. 2.
2. The remaining paragraphs of the memorandum of appeal raise the question which is substantially in issue, namely, whether there has been a compliance with the provisions of Act I of 1894. The necessary declaration under Section 6 of the Act was duly made and published, and we are satisfied that the public notice required by Section 9, Clauses 1 and 2, was also duly published. The question is whether there was reasonable service of notice on plaintiff No. 2 as required by Clauses 3 and 4 of Section 9 aforesaid. The facts are set forth in full detail in the judgment of the Court below. We have examined the record and have satisfied ourselves as to the contents of the important notice of April 17th, 1913, which was undoubtedly issued to and served on the second plaintiff on the 3rd of May 1913. We have been referred to certain cases in which questions analogous to these now before us have been discussed. The correct principles of law seem to be laid down in the case of Ganga Ram Marwari v. Secretary of State for India 30 C. 576. There is nothing in the later case of Rameshwar Singh v. Secretary of State for India 37 C. 470 at p. 474 : 11 C.W.N. 356 : 56 Cr.L.J. 699 which conflicts with the earlier ruling. The question before the Court in that case was as to the irregularity and inadequate publication of the public notice required by Section 9, Clauses 1 and 2, of the Act. On a consideration of the entire evidence it seems to us that, although the proceedings in the Court of the Land Acquisition Officer were hasty and irregular, there was nevertheless substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act. The second plaintiff did in fact receive notice of the proceedings which were pending for the acquisition of this plot of land, and he received this notice in reasonable time to enable him to have taken any action which he might consider necessary. He did in fact put in an appearance and eventually asked for a reference to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. We think that the defendants have acquired title to the land in suit under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and that they are not liable to be ejected on the suit of these plaintiffs.
3. The appeal, therefore, fails and we dismiss it with costs including fees on the higher scale.