Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VISHNUPURI PROJECT DIVISION NO 1versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The amendment of the claim to include additional tree compensation is permissible and the High Court will not interfere with the lower court’s order.

Summary

The Executive Engineer (the acquiring body) filed a writ petition challenging a lower court order that allowed the original claimants to amend their compensation claim to include additional trees and related assets. The claimants sought to increase the number of trees and associated compensation under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC read with Section 151. The petitioner argued that the amendment was impermissible because the reference court’s jurisdiction was limited to enhancement of compensation for already identified items, and that the claimants were aware of the tree count at the time of acquisition. The court held that the amendment was within the discretion of the reference court and that the petitioner could still contest the evidence and raise issues such as limitation. Consequently, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the lower court’s order and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

The amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 151 is permissible when the reference court’s jurisdiction is limited to enhancement of compensation.
Whether the original claimants can add additional tree compensation after the reference is filed.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the admissibility of evidence and limitation concerning the amended claim.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure — s. 151, Order VI Rule 17

Subjects

amendment of pleadings
compensation enhancement
land acquisition
CPC
Order VI Rule 17
Section 151
tree compensation
evidence admissibility
limitation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4884
27-WP-13785-2023.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

27 WRIT PETITION NO. 13785 OF 2023

The Executive Engineer Vishnupuri Project Division No 1
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector And Others
…..
Mr. Kulkarni Mukul S., Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. D. R. Kale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State
Ms. G. N. Chincholkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4(A) to
4(C)
…..

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 02.02.2026

PER COURT :

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner – Acquiring Body is
aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2023 passed below Exhibit – 19 by
the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed in L.A.R.
No.328/2007, whereby the Application filed by the Original
Claimants / Respondent Nos.3 and 4-A to 4-C (hereinafter referred to
as ‘Original Claimants’) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed.

3. The Original Claimants have sought to incorporate following
pleading by way of amendment:-

1
27-WP-13785-2023.odt

Claim in Reference Amendment Exhibit – 10 Amendment sought
[Page 29 / Para 18] [Page 32] Exhibit – 19 [Page 35/ Para 6]
4 H. 48 R in S. No. 41 Amendment in respect of 4 H. 48 R in S. No. 41
8 H. 45 R in S. No. 42 compensation for trees 8 H. 45 R in S. No. 42
= Rs. 64,65,000/- = Rs.64,65,000/-
1 well of stone 1 well of stone and pipeline
= Rs. 1,12,000/-
1 well of cement = Rs. 9,00,000/-
= Rs.75,000/- 1 well of cement
1 pipeline = Rs.2,10,000/-
= Rs.75,000/- 1 cement pipeline
1 cement pipeline = Rs.35,000/-
= Rs. 50,000/- 1 cattle pond
1 cattle pond = Rs.50,000/-
= Rs.25,000/- 10 jujuwa trees
10 jujuwa trees = Rs.1,00,000/- * 1400 Mango trees in S. No.41
= Rs.50,000/- 6 Jamb trees = Rs.4,06,00,000/-
6 Jamb trees = Rs.60,000/- * 1850 Mango trees in S. No.42
= Rs.18,000/- 2 Lime Tree = Rs.5,18,00,000/-
2 Lime Tree = Rs.30,000/- * Jujuwa trees, Guava trees,
= Rs.4000/- kadulimb trees
= Rs.1,80,000/-
* 451 teakwood trees in S.
No.41.
= Rs.1,60,00,000/-
* 395 teakwood trees in S.
No.42
= Rs.1,38,25,000/-
Total Rs.68,84,000/- Total Total
Rs.69,92,200/- Rs.12,90,95,250/-

4. The learned Counsel Mr. Mukul Kulkarni for the Petitioner
vehemently submits that such an amendment ought not have been
permitted by the learned Reference Court because the Collector
forwards the reference to the Civil Court and the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court is confined to considering the reference for enhancement of
compensation. Therefore, the Original Claimants were not entitled to
amend the claim so as to incorporate the claim relating to trees.

5. He further submits that at the time when the reference was filed,
the Original Claimants were well aware of the number of trees
allegedly acquired. Hence, the present amendment is a deliberate
2
27-WP-13785-2023.odt

attempt on the part of the Original Claimants to claim higher
compensation in respect of trees which were never acquired. He
further submits that during the acquisition proceedings, the entire
record was available with the Original Claimants and even a joint
measurement was carried out. The joint measurement clearly showed
the trees at the relevant time. Therefore, when the reference was filed,
the Original Claimants have incorporated the claim regarding the
trees. According to the learned Counsel, the present amendment is an
afterthought, made with the sole intention of seeking enhanced
compensation for the trees.

6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the law laid down in
the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil (since
deceased through his L.Rs.) Pralhad Sitaram Patil and Others reported
in 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 387. He further submits that except for the
quantum of compensation, the Claimants are not permitted to seek
amendment of the reference.

7. Per contra, the learned Counsel Ms. Chincholkar appearing for
the Original Claimants submits that though the information regarding
the trees was given to the concerned Counsel, due to inadvertence, all
the trees were not mentioned in the reference. Therefore the learned
Trial Court, after considering the averments made by the Claimants,
allowed the amendment Application.

8. I have gone through the averments made by the learned Counsel
for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Original Claimants.
The Original Claimants had filed an Application for amendment of the
pleading to incorporate that the trees which were mentioned earlier in
the claim are less in numbers and by way of amendment, Claimants

3
27-WP-13785-2023.odt

sought only to incorporate the more number of trees, and the
Petitioner – Acquiring Body will get sufficient opportunity to contest
the claim by showing that no such trees were standing on the land at
the time of acquisition. At this stage, the grounds raised by the
Petitioner are not required to be considered. The fact that the learned
Reference Court permitted the amendment does not imply that all
contentions of the Original Claimants are accepted. It is for the
Claimants to prove their case and the Petitioner – Acquiring Body has
every right to cross-examine and challenge evidence regarding the
trees.

9. In view thereof, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
order dated 26.06.2023 passed below Exhibit – 19 by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed in L.A.R. No.328/2007.

10. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

11. However, it is made clear that the Petitioner – Acquiring Body
has the liberty to raise all the issues regarding the admissibility of the
evidence subsequently placed on record by way of amendment,
including the question of limitation.

[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]

Sameer/February-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…