{1} ca852111.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8521 OF 2011 IN CROSS OBJECTION NO.1171 OF 2003 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.499 OF 1997 Hari Genu Mahajan (since deceased) through L.Rs. 1 Smt.Anusayabai w/o Hari Mahajan, (died on 24.03.2003 leaving behind Respondents No.2 to 5 as L.Rs.) 2 Shriram Hari Mahajan, age: 53 years, Occ: Agril., 3 Laxman Hari Mahajan, (died) through L.Rs.: 3-A Smt.Alka wd/o Laxman Mahajan, age: 52 years, Occ: Household, 3-B Chetan Laxman Mahajan, age: 22 years, Occ: Education; 3-C Kalpesh Laxman Mahajan, age: 19 years, Occ: Education; All R/o 3-A to 3-C, 103, `Hari Laxmi Krupa’, Opposite Swami Vivekanand School, Ramchandranagar, Dombivali (East), Pin-421 201. 4 Smt.Mirabai w/o Madhukar Patil, age: 58 years, Occ: Household, R/o Dudhi Gorale, Tq.Burhanpur, District Khandawa (M.P.). {2} ca852111.odt 5 Sau. Mandabai Shriram Patil, age: 44 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Ainpur, Tq. Raver, District Jalgaon. Applicants Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, District Jalgaon. Respondents Mr. V.T.Choudhari, advocate for applicants. Mr. K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. Reserved on : 28 th July, 2011 Pronounced on: 12 th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 This is an application tendered by the original claimants – respondents in the First Appeal seeking leave to amend the Reference Application presented before the Reference Court i.e. L.A.R. No.54/1991. 2 It is the case of applicants – original claimants that agricultural lands and houses belonging to the claimants were acquired by the Government for construction of upper Tapi Project Hatnur, District Jalgaon. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 12.10.1983 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award granting compensation in respect of acquired residential plots @ Rs.9/- per square meter. The Land Acquisition Officer also offered {3} ca852111.odt compensation for the structures on the basis of valuation report. The claimants filed Land Acquisition Reference No.54 of 1991 which came to be heard and disposed of by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon on 13th October, 1995. 3 The instant appeal is presented by the State raising exception to the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. The claimants have also presented a Cross Objection claiming enhanced amount of compensation. The claimants are seeking amendment to the Reference Application as well as the Cross Objection presented to this Court. The claimants claimed compensation before the Reference Court @ Rs.110/- per square feet i.e. Rs.1182.05 per square meter, however, by mistake, for the purposes of court fees, in para 5 of the application, the claim mentioned in respect of open plot is @ Rs.120/- per square meter. So also the claimants claimed compensation for house bearing no.123 admeasuring 149.5 square meters @ Rs.1182.05 per square meter. They claimed market value for house bearing no.130 admeasuring 104 square meters @ Rs.860/- per square meter. They claimed market value for house property Nos.118 and 119 admeasuring 88 square meters with structure at the rate of Rs.110/- per square meter. 4 It is contended by the claimants that in respect of acquisition of adjoining house properties, different claimants presented various Reference Applications. Land Acquisition Reference Nos.2/91, 3/91 and 4/91 were preferred by the adjoining property holders and on consideration of the Reference Applications presented by them, the Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.225/- per square meter for open plot and granted Rs.1200/- per square meter for constructed area. {4} ca852111.odt The State Government preferred appeals against the common judgment and awards passed by the Reference Court, being First Appeal Nos. 133/95 and 134/95. Claimants also preferred First Appeals bearing Nos. 338/95, 339/95 and 340/95. All the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment by the Division Bench of this Court 23.09.2003. The Division Bench of this Court confirmed the award passed by the Reference Court in respect of payment of compensation @ Rs.225/- per square meter for acquisition of open plots, whereas, quashed and set aside enhanced compensation awarded for structures @ Rs.1200/- per square meter. 5 The matter was taken to the Apex Court by way of appeal bearing Civil Appeal Nos.2817 and 2818 of 2005. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals partly and directed enhancement in the amount of compensation for structures @ Rs.1700/- per square meter. 6 The claimants, in the instant matters, whose properties are just adjoining the properties acquired for the same project, which was subject matter of challenge before the High Court and Supreme Court, are claiming uniformity in the rate of compensation in respect of structures as well as plot area. The claimants in the instant matters, therefore, seek leave to amend the Reference Application. 7 The claimants claim compensation @ Rs.225/- per square meter for open area and @ Rs.1700/- per square meter for the structures, considering the judgment of the Apex Court, which is required to be taken as a guide for determining compensation in the instant matters also. The prayer for amendment, as sought for by the claimants, is {5} ca852111.odt required to be considered favourably. 8 The claimants seek leave to place reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil & others, reported in 2010 (2) Bom. C.R. 366. While answering the issue referred to the Full Bench, it was held by the Full Bench, that the claimants can be permitted to amend their Reference Applications filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, so as to seek enhancement in the amount of compensation. It is also held by the Full Bench that the amendment claiming enhancement in the amount of compensation can be allowed before the Reference Court as well as at the stage of appeal in High Court. 9 Considering the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment cited supra, the Civil Application deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. Claimants are permitted to amend the claim clause in the Reference Application as well as in the Cross objection presented to this Court. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/ca852111