Bombay High Court
Empress Mills Karmachari Co-Op. ... vs State Of Maha., Through Special ... on 3 August, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp323.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.323/2016
Empress Mills Karmachari Co-operative
Housing Society Limited, through its
Secretary, Shri Kisan Ramchandra Nikhare,
having its office at Shree Nagar,
Ring Road, Nagpur. ..Petitioner.
..VS..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Special Land Acquisition
Officer Shivgaon (MIHAN), Nagpur.
2. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Urban Development Company
Limited, having its office in MIHAN Area,
Wardha Road, Nagpur. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri S.Y. Deopujari, Advocate for respondent No.2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 3.8.2016.
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri S.Y. Deopujari,
Advocate for the respondent No.2 and Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the reference application so as to
incorporate the additional claim which the claimant proposes to make in the
reference. This application is rejected by the learned District Judge observing that
2 wp323.16
the reference proceedings are at the stage of evidence and the proposed amendment
will not serve any purposes at this stage.
With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the
respondent No.2 and the learned A.G.P. I have examined the documents placed on
record of the writ petition. In my view, the learned District Judge has committed an
error in rejecting the application (Exh. No.10) filed by the petitioner - claimant for
the reasons recorded in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order. Though the learned
Advocate for the respondent No.2 - Acquiring Authority has submitted that the claim
sought to be introduced by the proposed amendment is not permissible, the
respondent No.2 has not been able to point out that the petitioner is precluded from
praying for the additional compensation as sought by the proposed amendment. As
any legal impediment for permitting the petitioner to amend the reference application
has not been pointed out, in my view, the petitioner can be permitted to amend the
reference application.
4. Hence, the following order:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The application (Exh. No.10) filed by the petitioner in Land Acquisition
Case No.30/2009 is allowed.
(iii) The petitioner is permitted to amend the reference application.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
3 wp323.16
CERTIFICATE
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment/Order".
Uploaded By : N.V. Tambaskar. Uploaded On : 8.8.2016.
Personal Assistant.
