[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S Sylvania & Laxman Ltd vs Uoi on 10 April, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on - 16th February, 2026
Date of Decision - 10th April, 2026
Uploaded on - 10th April, 2026
+ LA.APP. 450/2009 & CM APPL. 10816/2025
LAXMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SYLVANIA & LAXMAN LTD.)
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
S.S. Rana and Mr. Dhananjay
Mehlawat, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Mr. MohdSueb Akhtar and Ms. Joohu
Kumari, Advs. for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi and Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advs.
for R-2/DMRC.
WITH
+ LA.APP. 515/2009 & CM APPL. 10833/2025
LAXMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SYLVANIA & LAXMAN LTD.)
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
S.S. Rana and Mr. Dhananjay
Mehlawat, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL LA.APP. 450/2009 & connected matters Page 1 of 22
KUMAR
Signing Date:10.04.2026
16:33:34
Mr. MohdSueb Akhtar and Ms. Joohu
Kumari, Advs. for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Vishwajeet
Tyagi and Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advs.
for R-2/DMRC.
AND
+ LA.APP. 469/2009 & CM APPL. 10880/2009
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Shama Sharma, Adv.
versus
LAXMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SYLVANIA & LAXMAN LTD.)
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
S.S. Rana and Mr. Dhananjay
Mehlawat, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, and Mr. M.S.
Akhtar, Advs. for R-2/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
ORDER
SHAIL JAIN, J.
C.M. APPL. NO. 10816/2025 in L.A.APP. NO. 450/2009;
C.M. APPL. NO. 10833/2025 in L.A. APP. NO. 515/2009
1. The present Applications have been filed on behalf of the Appellants/
Applicants in the Appeals herein, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, (also referred to as 'the Code') read with Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking Amendment of their
respective Appeals with respect to the amounts claimed for the acquisition
of their respective lands.
2. The Appellants have sought the following reliefs in the present
Application.
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application
may kindly be allowed and the Appellant be permitted to
carry out the amendment referred to in Para 10, in the
Memo of Appeal and opening sheet.
May pass any other or further order (s) deemed fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. At the outset, it is noted that the Appellant herein, Laxman Industries
Limited, was formerly known as M/s Sylvania & Laxman Ltd. The change
in the name of the Appellant stands recorded in terms of the Order dated
20th February, 2025.
4. It may be noted that though the Appeals arise out of distinct
judgments of the Reference Court and relate to different parcels of land
belonging to the same Appellant, they are founded on an identical set of
facts and seek similar reliefs, with variation only in the enhanced amount
claimed per square metre and the consequential total compensation.
5. In C.M. APPL. NO. 10816/2025 in L.A.APP. NO. 450/2009, the
Appellant seeks to substitute the claim of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty
Thousand only) per sq. mtr. with Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty
Thousand only) per sq. mtr. In addition, the court fee initially paid was Rs.
22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only) in L.A. APP. No. 450/2009,
whereas the revised court fee is stated to be Rs. 2,47,223/- (Rupees Two
Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Three only).
6. Similarly, in C.M. APPL. NO. 10833/2025 in L.A.APP. NO.
515/2009, a corresponding amendment has been sought seeking
enhancement of the claim from Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
to Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only) per sq. mtr.
Furthermore, in L.A. APP. No. 515/2009, the court fee initially paid was Rs.
11,96,300/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand and Three Hundred
only), whereas the revised court fee is stated to be Rs. 67,20,006/- (Rupees
Sixty Seven Lakh Twenty Thousand and Six only).
7. It is further stated that the Reply filed in C.M. APPL. NO.
10816/2025 in L.A.APP. NO. 450/2009 has been adopted by Respondent
No. 2 as a Reply in C.M. APPL. NO. 10833/2025 in L.A.APP. NO.
515/2009 as well.
BRIEF FACTS
8. The brief facts of the present Appeals are as follows:
A. The land of the Appellant, admeasuring 193 sq. m., was
notified for acquisition. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter also referred to as "the
Act") was issued on 13th February, 2004. Thereafter, notifications
under Sections 6 and 17(1) of the Act were issued on 08th June, 2004,
and possession of the land in question was taken by Respondent No. 1
on 20th July, 2004.
B. Pursuant thereto, the Land Acquisition Collector announced the
Award dated 28th January, 2005, fixing the market value of the land at
Rs. 19,660/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty only)
per sq. m. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred a reference under
Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, West
Delhi, vide Judgment and Final Order dated 09th April, 2009, enhanced
the market value to Rs. 29,956.48 (Rupees Twenty-Nine Thousand
Nine Hundred Fifty-Six and Forty-Eight Paise) per sq. m., thereby
granting an enhancement of Rs. 10,296.48 (Rupees Ten Thousand Two
Hundred Ninety-Six and Forty-Eight Paise) per sq. m.
C. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the Appellant has
preferred L.A. APP. No. 450/2009, claiming further enhancement of
compensation to Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand
only) per sq. m.
D. In a second Appeal concerning the same Appellant, but relating
to a different parcel of land admeasuring 5294 sq. m., acquired
pursuant to the same notifications, the Land Acquisition Collector, vide
Award dated 02nd February, 2005, fixed the market value at Rs.
19,660/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty only) per
sq. m. The Reference Court, by Judgment and Order dated 08th May,
2005, enhanced the market value to Rs. 26,896.62/- (Rupees Twenty
Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Six and Sixty-Two Paise only) per
sq. m., thereby granting an enhancement of Rs. 7,236.62/- (Rupees
Seven Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Six and Sixty-Two Paise only)
per sq. m. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred L.A. APP.
No. 515/2009, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only) per sq. m.
E. Before this Court, the Appellant/Applicant has thus sought Rs.
1,00,043.52/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty-Three and Fifty-Two Paise
only) per sq. m. towards additional compensation with solatium in L.A.
APP. No. 450/2009, and Rs. 1,03,103.38/- (Rupees One Lakh Three
Thousand One Hundred Three and Thirty-Eight Paise only) per sq. m.
in L.A. APP. No. 515/2009.
F. The Appellant also undertakes to pay the additional court fee
for the increase in the claim. The reason given in the Applications for
amendment seeking an increase is that at the time of filing of the
Appeals, the Appellant was facing financial constraints and had
therefore restricted the claim to Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand
only) per sq. m. in L.A. APP. NO. 450/2009, and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand Only) in L.A. APP. NO. 515/2009; however,
subsequent to the judgments of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
L.A. Appeal No. 253/2016 (M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. v. Union of
India & Anr.) and L.A. Appeal No. 255/2016 (M/s Anant Raj Projects
Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.), fixing the market value of similarly
situated land acquired under the same notification at Rs. 1,30,000/- per
sq. m., the Appellant seeks parity and accordingly seeks amendment of
the claims in the respective Appeals.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
9. On behalf of the Appellants/ Applicants, the following submissions
have been made.
a. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits
that at the time of filing the present Appeals in the year 2009, the
Appellant was facing financial constraints, as the enhanced
compensation awarded by the Reference Court had not been released.
Consequently, the Appellant restricted the claim to Rs. 40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand only) per sq. m. in L.A. APP. NO. 450/2009,
and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) in L.A. APP. NO.
515/2009. It is further submitted that the Appellant was also unable to
make a fair assessment of the market value of the acquired land situated
in Kirti Nagar Industrial Area at the relevant time.
b. It is further submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in
L.A. Appeal No. 253/2016 titled "M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. v. Union
of India & Anr.", and L.A. Appeal No. 255/2016 titled "M/s Anant Raj
Projects Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.", concerning the lands acquired
pursuant to the same notification dated 13th February, 2004, and
Award No. 06/DCAV/2004-05, has already fixed the market value at
Rs. 1,30,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only) per sq. mtr.
The land involved therein is situated in DLF Industrial Area, Kirti
Nagar, carved out in Basai Darapur, Delhi, and shares a common
boundary with the Appellant's property. In the aforementioned cases,
the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the market value at Rs.
19,660/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty only) per
sq. mtr.
c. It is also submitted that the Appellant's property is adjacent to
the property involved in the said judgment, having been acquired under
the same notifications and award, and therefore the Appellant is
entitled to parity. In light of the respective judgments dated 29th
October, 2024 in L.A. Appeal No. 253/2016 and L.A. Appeal No.
255/2016, the Appellant seeks amendment of the claim from Rs.
40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per sq. mtr. in L.A. Appeal No.
450/2009 and from Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per sq.
mtr. in L.A. Appeal No. 515/2009 to Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Thirty Thousand only) per sq. mtr. respectively.
d. In addition, it is submitted that the Appellant undertakes to pay
the requisite additional court fee. The amendment sought is stated to be
formal in nature and not to alter the nature of the Appeals. It is further
submitted that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are
expropriatory in nature and the Appellant is entitled to just
compensation equivalent to similarly situated lands acquired under the
same notification.
10. On the other hand, the following have been contended on behalf of
Respondent No. 2.
a. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the
Applications are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches. The Appeals were filed in the year 2009
seeking the market value at Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand only)
per sq. mtr., whereas after approximately 16 years, the Appellant now
seeks enhancement to Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty
Thousand only) per sq. mtr., without sufficient explanation.
b. It is submitted that the grant of the amendment would cause
grave prejudice and impose substantial financial liability upon
Respondent No. 2.
c. It is further submitted that the Appellant had earlier claimed Rs.
65,000/-(Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only) per sq. mtr. before the
Land Acquisition Collector and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
per sq. mtr. in the reference proceedings. Therefore, the plea of
financial hardship is stated to be incorrect and an afterthought. It is also
submitted that the Appellant consciously restricted its claim to Rs.
40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) per sq. mtr. before this Court and cannot now enhance
the claim after lapse of several years.
d. It is submitted that the amendment sought exceeds the claim
advanced before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference
Court. The Appellant also did not avail remedies under Sections 148
and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, at the relevant stage.
e. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
"Manoharan v. Sivarajan & Ors." (2014) 4 SCC 163, to contend that
the discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
is limited.
f. It is further submitted that the principle of dominus litis applies,
and the Appellant, having consciously chosen the relief, cannot now
alter the same.
g. It is lastly submitted that the judgments in M/s Anant Raj
Projects Ltd. (supra) are under challenge and the enhancement granted
therein is excessive. The Applications are therefore liable to be
dismissed with costs.
ISSUE INVOLVED
11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record. The sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the present
Applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the claim amount in
the respective Land Acquisition Appeals, are liable to be allowed, and if so,
on what terms.
DISCUSSION
12. The present Appeals arise under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The appellate jurisdiction under Section 54 is wide and enables
this Court to determine the just market value of the acquired land.
13. Prima facie, the statutory scheme makes it clear that the Appellant is
not barred from seeking enhancement beyond the amount originally claimed
in the appeal and/or before the Reference Court.
14. At the same time, Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, pertains to the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit, and reads as
under:-
"17. Amendment of pleadings.--The Court may at any
stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as
may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may
be necessary for the purpose of determining the real
questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that
no application for amendment shall be allowed after the
trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the
conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
15. Thus, a reading of the aforesaid statutory provision indicates the
following:
I.The amendment of pleadings may be allowed at any stage of the
proceedings.
II.The amendment must be necessary for determining the real question in
controversy inter se the parties; and
III.Where the amendment is sought after commencement of trial, the Court
must be satisfied that, despite the exercise of due diligence, the party
could not have raised the matter at an earlier stage.
16. By way of the present Applications, the amendment is sought in
Paragraph "K" of the respective Appeals, along with the consequential
changes in their Memos of Appeal, Opening Sheets, and Prayer Clauses.
17. Paragraph K in L.A. APP. No. 450/2009 is stated hereinunder.
"K. Because the learned Lower Court failed to appreciate
that the land was situated on the main road and was part
and parcel of an approved industrial area and enjoyed all
potentialities of a perfect commercial area. The learned
Lower Court ought to have held that the market value of the
land of the appellant on the relevant date was not less than
Rs. 40,000/- per sq mtr. and the appellant claims the same
amount as compensation for the acquired land.
Amended para 'K' shall read as under:
Because the learned Lower Court failed to appreciate that
the land was situated on the main road and was part and
parcel of an approved industrial area, and enjoyed all
potentialities of a perfect commercial area. The learned
Lower Court ought to have held that the market value of the
land of the appellant on the relevant date was not less than
Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. mtr. and the appellant claims the
same amount as compensation for the acquired land.
Furthermore, in the Prayer Clause, the Appellant/Applicant seeks to amend
the the numeral in the 4th line, that is, Rs. 40,000/- to be replaced with Rs.
1,30,000/-; and in the 5th line, the decreetal amount of Rs. 19,38,400/-
(Rupees Nineteen Lakh Thirty-Eight Thousand Four Hundred only) to be
replaced with Rs. 2,50,90,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lakh Ninety
Thousand only).
18. Similarly, Paragraph K in L.A. APP. No. 515/2009 is also stated
hereinunder.
"K. Because the learned Lower Court failed to appreciate
that the land was situated on the main road and was part
and parcel of an approved industrial area and enjoyed all
potentialities of a perfect commercial area. The learned
Lower Court ought to have held that the market value of the
land of the appellant on the relevant date was not less than
Rs. 50,000/- per sq mtr. and the appellant claims the same
amount as compensation for the acquired land.
Amended para 'K' shall read as under:
Because the learned Lower Court failed to appreciate that
the land was situated on the main road and was part and
parcel of an approved industrial area, and enjoyed all
potentialities of a perfect commercial area. The learned
Lower Court ought to have held that the market value of the
land of the appellant on the relevant date was not less than
Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. mtr. and the appellant claims the
same amount as compensation for the acquired land.
Then, in the Prayer Clause again, the Appellant/Applicant seeks to amend
the numeral in the 4th line, that is, Rs. 50,000/- to be replaced with Rs.
1,30,000/-; and in the 5th line, the decreetal amount of Rs. 12,23,20,846/-
(Rupees Twelve Crores Twenty Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Eight
Hundred and Forty Six only) to be replaced with Rs. 68,82,85,000/- (Rupees
Sixty-Eight Crores Eighty-Two Lakh and Ninety Thousand only).
19. At this stage, it becomes essential to consider the law relating to the
amendment of pleadings. It may be noted that the settled position of law in
this context is that amendments which are necessary for effective
adjudication and do not change the nature of the proceedings ought to be
allowed.
20. Support in this regard may be taken by this Court from the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Revajeetu Builders & Developers
v. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors." (2009) 10 SCC 84. The relevant part
of the judgment is extracted hereunder.
"33. The general principle is that courts at any stage of the
proceedings may allow either party to alter or amend the
pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just
and all those amendments must be allowed which are
imperative for determining the real question in controversy
between the parties. The basic principles of grant or refusal
of amendment articulated almost 125 years ago are still
considered to be correct statement of law and our courts
have been following the basic principles laid down in those
cases."
21. Furthermore, a similar finding has been given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "North Eastern Railway Administration,
Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das", (2008) 8 SCC 511. Given below is the
relevant part of the judgment.
"15. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of
granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17
C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these
are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates
amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In
"Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil
& Ors." which still holds the field, it was held that all
amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two
conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side,
and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining
the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Amendments should be refused only where the other party
cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had
been originally correct, but the amendment would cause
him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.
[Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal
Kalwar (1990) 1 SCC 166.]"
22. It is no longer res integra that the Courts shall adopt a liberal
approach in granting leave to amend the pleadings, and such has been held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts nation-wide, time and again.
However, it is pertinent to mention that the liberal approach being adopted
shall not be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such
power.
23. In this backdrop, it is apposite to mention that certain parameters have
been formulated and have been followed by the Courts for the longest time
to decide the applications of such nature as the present one.
24. The relevant paragraphs in the case "Revajeetu Builders &
Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. (supra)", basing the
aforesaid principle as the subject matter, are extracted hereunder.
"67. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian
cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be
taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the
application for amendment.
(1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper
and effective adjudication of the case?
(2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or
mala fide?
(3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the
other side which cannot be compensated adequately in
terms of money;
(4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or
lead to multiple litigation;
(5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the
case? and
(6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments
if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by
limitation on the date of application.
68. These are some of the important factors which may be
kept in mind while dealing with an application filed under
Order VI Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not
exhaustive."
25. This Court also finds assistance from the case of "Dinesh Goyal @
Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors." 2024 INSC 726 in the
aforesaid setting.
"11.2. Over the years, through numerous judicial
precedents, certain factors have been outlined for the
application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.
& Anr., after considering numerous precedents in regard to
the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:-
(i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary
for determining the real question in controversy provided it
does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This
is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word
"shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
(ii) In the following scenario, such applications should be
ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties
to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not
result in injustice to the other side.
(iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the
same should be disallowed if
(a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does
not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party
which confers a right on the other side.
(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim,
resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable
accrued right (in certain situations)
(c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the
suit;
(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,
(e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid
defence.
(iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are -
(I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach;
ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can
be compensated by costs.
(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is
intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the
plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach.
(III) The amendment should not change the cause of action,
so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set
up in the plaint."
26. In the present case, the amendment sought is confined only to the
enhancement of the claim amount in the respective Appeals. The
foundational facts giving rise to the present Appeals remain unchanged,
namely, the acquisition of the Appellant's lands pursuant to the same
notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the determination
of market value by the Land Acquisition Collector, and the subsequent
enhancement granted by the Reference Court. The Appellant continues to
seek further enhancement of compensation on the same set of facts and on
the basis of comparable material relating to similarly situated lands.
27. The nature and character of the Appeals, therefore, remain unaltered,
as the proceedings continue to be appeals under Section 54 of the Act
seeking a determination of the just market value of the acquired land. The
amendment does not introduce any new factual foundation, does not alter
the identity of the acquired land, and does not set up a new or inconsistent
case. Rather, it merely seeks modification of the quantum of compensation
claimed, which is incidental to the principal relief already sought in the
Appeals.
28. It is also relevant that the Respondents are not required to meet any
new case on facts, nor is any additional evidence necessitated solely on
account of the amendment. The controversy between the parties continues to
be confined to the determination of the appropriate market value of the
acquired land. Thus, the proposed amendment neither introduces a new
cause of action nor changes the nature of the proceedings, but merely
enlarges the relief claimed within the same cause of action already pleaded.
29. On another note, Sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, confer discretionary powers upon the Court to extend time
for doing any act prescribed or allowed by the Code and to permit the
making up of the deficiency in court fees, respectively. Section 148 enables
the Court, in its discretion, to enlarge the time fixed or granted for the doing
of any act, whereas Section 149 empowers the Court to allow a party to
make good the deficiency in court fees at a later stage, with the effect that
such document shall have the same force and validity as if the requisite fee
had been paid in the first instance.
30. In view of the aforesaid, the reliance placed by the Respondents on
Sections 148 and 149 of the Code is misconceived and wholly inapplicable
to the present case. The issue involved herein neither pertains to the
enlargement of time for performing any procedural act nor relates to the
deficiency of court fees. The controversy in the present matter falls outside
the scope and ambit of the aforesaid provisions. Accordingly, the said
provisions have no relevance in the facts of the present Applications.
31. In furtherance, the reliance placed by the Respondents on
"Manoharan vs. Sivarajan & Ors." (supra) is equally misplaced. The said
judgment was rendered in the context of facts involving the applicability of
Sections 148 and 149 of the Code. Since the said provisions themselves are
not attracted in the present case, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment has no
application to the controversy at hand. The Respondents' reliance on the
said decision is, therefore, irrelevant and does not advance their case.
32. Accordingly, the present amendments fall squarely within the
permissible scope of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code.
33. As far as the point of delay is concerned, the Respondent has opposed
the Applications on the ground of delay, submitting that the Appeals were
filed in the year 2009 and the present applications have been filed after a
considerable lapse of time.
34. Furthermore, Order VI Rule 17 does not provide any time limit or
particular stage at which the amendment may be sought. The provision, in
turn, specifies that an amendment, if necessary for the just disposal of a
case, may be allowed at any stage.
35. In the present case, the amendments sought are based on subsequent
judgments dated 29th October 2024 of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the matters, namely "M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. v. Union of India &
Anr."(L.A. APP. NO. 253/2016) and "M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. v.
Union of India & Anr." (L.A. APP. NO. 255/2016) in respect of similarly
situated lands acquired under the same notification. The Appellant seeks
parity with the compensation awarded therein.
36. Herein, the Appellant seeks parity with the judgments in L.A. Appeal
No. 253/2016 and L.A. Appeal No. 255/2016, concerning the lands acquired
under the same notification and situated adjacent to the Appellant's
property, and as a result, is seeking an amendment in the Appeals for the
enhancement of the compensation amount.
37. Nonetheless, the objection of Respondent No. 2 regarding prejudice
on account of delay cannot be completely ignored. The Appellant, having
approached this Court after a considerable lapse of time, cannot claim
equities for the entire intervening period.
38. In such circumstances, the balance of justice would be met by
permitting the amendment, while safeguarding the Respondents against the
financial prejudice arising out of the delay.
39. This Court is of the considered view that though the Appellant is
entitled to seek amendment of the claim to claim just compensation, the
Appellant cannot be permitted to derive benefit for the period of delay in
seeking such amendment.
40. Accordingly, while the amendments deserve to be allowed, the
Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the
period of delay attributable to the filing of the present Applications.
41. Accordingly, the present Applications filed under Order VI Rule 17
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are allowed,
subject to the condition that the Applicant/Appellant shall not be entitled to
the interest on the enhanced amount, if allowed in the present Appeals, from
the date of filing the Appeals till the date of filing the Applications.
42. The Appellant is permitted to amend the claim amounts in L.A. APP.
No. 450/2009 and L.A. APP. No. 515/2009, respectively, in terms of the
Applications.
43. The Appellant shall deposit the requisite additional court fee as well
as make the necessary amendments within a period of 6 weeks. Upon the
same being done, the amended Memo of Appeals shall be taken on record.
44. The Applications stand disposed of in the above terms.
45. There shall be no order as to costs.
LA.APP. 450/2009, LA.APP. 469/2009 & LA.APP. 515/2009
46. List the matters on 24th July, 2026.
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
APRIL 10, 2026/MM
