Ashruba Eknath Bhate And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1822 Bom

                                             {1}
                                                                      wp 10509.15.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                             
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO.10509 OF 2015




                                                     
     1        Ashruba S/o Eknath Bhate
              age: 55 years, occu: agri
              R/o Sopethwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed




                                                    
     2        Ankush S/o Eknath Bhate
              Age: 52 years, occu: Agri
              R/o as above




                                         
     3        Rama S/o Eknath Bhate
              age: 49 years, occu: agri
                             
              R/o As above

     4        Kalyan S/o Eknath Bhate
              age: 46 years, occu: agri
                            
              R/o as above

     5        Sheshrao S/o Eknath Bhate
              age: 60 years, occu: agri
              R/o as above                                       Petitioners
      


              Versus
   



     1        The State of Maharashtra
              through Collector, Beed





              Taluka and District Beed

     2        The Executive Engineer (Minor Irrigation)
              Local sector, Nagar Road, Beed
              Taluka and District Beed                                 Respondents

_______________

CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J (Date : 25th APRIL, 2016.) ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Heard.

{2} wp 10509.15.odt

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision at admission stage.

3 An application tendered by the petitioners seeking

amendment to the Reference application has been turned down by

the Trial Court on the ground that the same has been presented at

late stage and the applicants have not exercised due diligence.

4 The amendment requested by the petitioners is of a formal

nature. So far as paragraph No.'A' is concerned, the petitioners

seek correction in the date of Section 4 Notification, whereas in

paragraph No.'B' the petitioners are praying for enhanced amount

of compensation. Even if the application is allowed, no prejudice is

likely to be caused to the respondents, since the burden of

proving market value of the land at the time of acquisition solely

rests on the petitioners. It is informed by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners that the respondent State and the

acquiring body have not presented written statement, nor the

reference Court has framed issues in the matter.

It is thus clear that the trial has not yet commenced and as

such there was no impediment for the Trial Court to entertain the

application presented by the petitioners.

{3} wp 10509.15.odt

5 In the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me,

ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners / claimants are

permitted to amend the pleading. The order impugned in the

petition at Exh.9 in LAR No.647/12 passed on 18.8.2015 by the

Judge-3, is quashed and set aside. The application tendered by

the petitioners at Exh.9 under order VI Rule 17 shall be deemed

to have been allowed.

Rule is accordingly made absolute.

7 There shall be no order as to costs.

(R.M.BORDE, J)

vbd