1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding taken under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant, Gyansndra Nath Paul, 18 interested as a tenant in the land acquired. It appears that a notice was served noon him under Section 9 of the Act directing him to appear before the collector on the 30th August 1 y 15 at Belur riverside to make a statement as to the nature of his interest in the land and, if he wished to make a claim, to state the amount of his claim and give the particulars thereof, and also to set forth any objections he had to the measurement under Bastion 8, Os the 30th of August the collector went to the spot. The learned District Judge in the Court below has found that the appeal Act filed no written statement of his claim or of coy object he had to make on that day, be, undoubtedly, on the following day, the 3rd August, the appellant filed a petition stating his claim and his objections to the Collector's measurement. In due course, on the 18th of September 1916, an award was made by the collector and on the 8th of November 1916 the appellant applied for a referenda to the Civil Court under Section 18. When the matter came before the District Judge a preliminary objection was taken by the Government Pleader under station 25 of the Act on the ground that the appellant hid omitted without sufficient reason to make his claim pursuant to the notice given under Section 9. Evidence was taken on this Section, The case made for the appellant was that he had shown a written petition to the Collector on the 30th August and had been told by the collector to file it in Court which he did on the 31st. In the contras of the trial, an alternative case seems to have been made that the appellant preferred his claim to the Col Sector on the 20th August cray and was told to put it in writing. The learned District Judge has found that the statement that a petition was presented to the Collector on the 30th August is untrue and that finding must be accepted. The Deputy collector's recollection as to what happened on the 30th August is by no mean clear. That is not surprising. He says this: I cannot a wear from any document on the raid that Samba Paul (appellant in another case) and Gigan Paul (appellant in this case) were not present on the 30th August. On the spot I asked claimants to file written statements in the course of the day and I waited to receive written statements of claim. If a claimant appears and makes any verbal statement it is my practice to make notes in the khatian or on the petition, if any is filed, I do this then and there. I have no resolution whether Sambhu and Gyan made any verbal statements'. Looking at the evidence as a whole, and putting on one side the attempt which the appellant made in the first instance to set up an untrue case, we are of opinion that the appellant did appear before the collector on the 30th August though what passed on that day may be open to more doubt. A reference to Clause (2) of Section 9 shows that the clause permits the collector to require any oral statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. It is possible that the collector gave come general direction which the appellant took to mean that he was to file a petition in writing. There is no doubt that a petition in writing wan, in fast, filed on the following day and it was filed, therefore, before the collector made his award. We were referred to the case of the Secretary of St to for India in Council v. Gobind Lal 12 C.W.N. 263. That decision, however, does not carry us beyond the words of Clause (2) of Section 25. The learned Judges, no doubt, observed that a Lard Acquisition Judge Acting under that clause should state his reasons for allowing a claim to be preferred. That is, no doubt, a convenient and proper course for the Judge to take, In that case, when the matter came before the Land Acquisition Judge, no claim at all had been preferred by one of the claimants; and the other claimants had preferred no claim before the collector male his award. In the present case we are of opinion, as we have said, that the appellant went to the spot on the 30th August. If so, he may well have gone with the intention of making a claim and the omission to prefer a claim may be attributed to some misunderstanding of what the Collector may have said. People are not as a rule backward in making claims on these occasions, In the circumstance, we regard the petition filed on the following day in Court as a sufficient compliance with the notice under Section 9 of the Act, or, alternatively, we may say that the circumstances dipoles a sufficient reason for allowing the appellant to come in under Clause (3) of Section 25.
2. We may observe in conclusion that the notice served on the appellant does not specify the hour at which he was to appear at the Blur river side, The point does not appear to have been taken in the Court below and we do no more than notice it.
3. In the result, we set aside the order of the Land Acquisition Judge dismissing the appellant's claim and remit the case to him in order that the claim may be heard on the merits. Under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, we direct that a certificate be granted to the appellant authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of the fee paid by him on the memo, of appeal. In other respects, the costs of this appeal and of the Court below will abide the result. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at five gold mohurs.
4. IN NO. 85 OF 1919.
5. This case will be governed by the judgment that we have just delivered in appeal No. 29. We assess the hearing fee in this appeal at one gold mohur. The appellant will be similarly entitled to a refund of the Court-fees paid on the memo, of the appeal.