Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of lands acquired by the Malegaon Municipal Council (now Corporation), were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They filed a reference application under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation, which was partly allowed by the reference court on 22-4-1998. The acquiring body and the State filed first appeals before the Bombay High Court, which were disposed of on 15-6-2009 by a Division Bench that remanded the matter back to the reference court because the acquiring body was not a party to the original reference proceedings. On remand, the claim petition was amended to join the acquiring body as a respondent, and the matter was renumbered as Land Reference No. 1 of 2009. The acquiring body filed a written statement raising the issue of limitation, contending that the reference filed on 22-2-1990 was beyond the statutory period. In response, the petitioners moved an application (Exhibit 74) to amend the claim petition to substitute paragraph 3 with a plea that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served upon them, which would affect the limitation period. The trial court rejected the amendment application, leading the petitioners to file the present writ petition. The High Court examined the question of whether the amendment could be permitted. It noted that the amendment was necessitated by the acquiring body's plea of limitation and that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the claim but sought to clarify a fact relevant to limitation. The court held that the amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as they could file an additional written statement. The court allowed the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the acquiring body, to be paid within four weeks, and directed the reference court to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Amendment of Reference Application - Section 18 read with Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The petitioners sought to amend their reference application to plead that no notice under Section 12(2) was served upon them, which was relevant to the issue of limitation raised by the acquiring body. The court held that the amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy and did not change the nature of the claim, and allowed the amendment with costs. (Paras 2, 5-8)
B) Limitation - Filing of Reference - Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The acquiring body raised the issue of limitation contending that the reference filed on 22-2-1990 was beyond limitation. The court noted that the amendment sought to address this issue by pleading non-service of notice under Section 12(2), which would affect the limitation period. (Paras 4, 6)
C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court applied the principle that amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed, even if introduced belatedly, provided no prejudice is caused to the other side. The court allowed the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the acquiring body. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners can be permitted to amend the reference application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to substitute paragraph 3 with a proposed amendment regarding non-service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the trial court rejecting the amendment application, and permitted the petitioners to amend the reference application as proposed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the acquiring body within four weeks. The reference court was directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
Law Points
- Amendment of reference application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Limitation for filing reference
- Service of notice under Section 12(2)
- Power of court to allow amendment to cure defect in pleading
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (01) 39
Writ Petition No. 9902 of 2011
Mr. P.N. Joshi for the Petitioners, Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for the Respondent No.2, Mr. S.D. Rayrikar AGP for the Respondent No.1
Smt. Amina w/o Hafiz & Ors
The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1, Nashik & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the rejection of an amendment application in land acquisition reference proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to amend the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to substitute paragraph 3 with a plea that no notice under Section 12(2) was served upon them.
Filing Reason
The acquiring body raised the issue of limitation in its written statement, contending that the reference was filed beyond limitation. The petitioners sought to amend to plead non-service of notice under Section 12(2), which would affect the limitation period.
Previous Decisions
The reference application was partly allowed on 22-4-1998. First appeals by the acquiring body and State were disposed of on 15-6-2009 by a Division Bench which remanded the matter back to the reference court because the acquiring body was not a party. On remand, the acquiring body filed a written statement raising limitation. The trial court rejected the petitioners' amendment application.
Issues
Whether the petitioners can be permitted to amend the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to include a plea of non-service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act.
Whether the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy and whether it would cause prejudice to the respondents.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the amendment was necessitated by the acquiring body's plea of limitation and that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the claim but sought to clarify a fact relevant to limitation.
The respondents opposed the amendment, likely on grounds of delay or change in nature of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
Amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed, even if introduced belatedly, provided no prejudice is caused to the other side. The amendment sought to plead non-service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was relevant to the issue of limitation and did not change the nature of the claim.
Judgment Excerpts
The question which arises for consideration in the above Petition is as to whether the Petitioners can be permitted to amend the reference application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, so as to substitute paragraph 3 by the proposed paragraph in the amendment application.
The acquiring body raised the issue of limitation in paragraph 6 of its Written Statement. It was the case of the acquiring body that the reference as filed on 22-2-1990, was beyond limitation.
The amendment was moved on the basis that the Appendix VI filed by the Respondents which is an annexture to the reference application shows that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was served upon the claimants.
Procedural History
The petitioners' lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was declared on 26-8-1989, and notice under Section 12(2) was issued on 1-1-1990. The petitioners filed a reference under Section 18 on 22-2-1990, which was partly allowed on 22-4-1998. The acquiring body and State filed first appeals (First Appeal No.107 of 1999 and First Appeal No.263 of 1999), which were disposed of on 15-6-2009 by a Division Bench that remanded the matter back to the reference court. On remand, the claim petition was amended to join the acquiring body, and the matter was renumbered as Land Reference No.1 of 2009. The acquiring body filed a written statement raising limitation. The petitioners moved an amendment application (Exhibit 74) which was rejected by the trial court, leading to the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1), Section 12(2), Section 18
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 Rule 17
