Bombay High Court

KERBA BHUJANGA GADHAVE AND ANTOHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The amendment application should not have been rejected; the trial court's order is quashed.

Summary

The petitioners sought to amend a land reference filed under the Land Acquisition Act, claiming that a clerical error had listed 19 mango trees instead of the actual 300. The amendment was sought under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the trial court rejected the application, citing the delay of thirteen years and alleging a new theory to increase compensation. The petitioners argued that the amendment merely corrected a mistake and that proof of the trees would be left to the evidence stage, not automatically granting compensation. The respondent argued that allowing the amendment would impose an undue burden on the public exchequer. The High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment, emphasizing that amendment does not confer entitlement to compensation and that the acquiring body can contest the claim on merits. Consequently, the order rejecting the amendment was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the amendment of the land reference under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Whether an amendment sought after a long lapse can be permitted.
Whether permitting amendment would automatically entitle the petitioners to compensation.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order 6 Rule 17

Subjects

amendment of pleadings
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
land acquisition
compensation
writ petition
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4222


                                                 1                    86-WP-12327-21.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 12327 OF 2021

                           KERBA BHUJANGA GADHAVE AND ANOTHER
                                             VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                ...
              Mr. Upendra B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent/State
              Mr. V. D. Patnurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                                ...

                                   CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.          Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned AGP for

              respondent/State and learned counsel for respondent No.3.


              2.          Petitioners    are   aggrieved   by   the      order     dated

              28/08/2020, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed,

              below Exhibit-17 in L.A.R. No.24/2012, whereby the application filed

              by petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure

              seeking amendment in the land reference was rejected.


              3.          Learned counsel for petitioners submits that when the

              reference was filed, inadvertently instead of 300 mango trees it was

              mentioned as 19 mango trees. He submits that, as petitioners want

              to only amend the pleadings and it is for the claimants to prove the

              same by leading evidence, the trial Court ought not have rejected

              the same.



              SVH
                                           2                       86-WP-12327-21.odt



4.             Per     contra,     learned     counsel     for    respondent     No.3

vehemently opposed the petition contending that the application

was filed at the belated stage. He points out that, if there were

really 300 trees at the time when the land was acquired, the

claimants ought not have missed this important aspect while filing

the reference. Therefore, it is evident that they want to improve

their case by way of amendment. After thirteen years of filing the

reference new theory has been carved out so as to get the benefit.

As far as compensation is concerned, if such theory is to be

accepted it will create unnecessary monetary burden on the public

exchequer.         Trial   Court    has,     therefore,    rightly    rejected     the

application.


5.             I    have    gone     through      the     rival   contentions     and

documents placed on record. As per contentions of the petitioners,

at the time of filing of reference, inadvertently petitioners have

mentioned 19 mango trees instead of 300 mango trees, therefore,

by way of amendment they want to amend the reference.

Permitting the petitioners to amend the reference does not mean

that the petitioners will be entitled to receive the compensation for

aforesaid mango trees. Claimants are required to prove the same by

leading evidence and on that respondent acquiring body will also be

having opportunity to contest the same by leading evidence. In view

of    that, I find that trial Court ought not have rejected the


SVH
                                      3                  86-WP-12327-21.odt


application at Exhibit-17 seeking amendment in the reference.


6.          Writ   petition   is,    therefore,   allowed.   Order    dated

28/08/2020, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed,

below Exhibit-17 in L.A.R. No.24/2012 is hereby quashed and set

aside. Application at Exhibit-17 in L.A.R. No.24/2012 is allowed.


7.          It is made clear that the acquiring body is at liberty to

contest the claim of petitioners on it’s own merits after amendment

is carried out in the reference.



                                    (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)




SVH

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…