1 W.P. No. 1694.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1694 OF 2009 Gulchand S/o Pandharinath Mule, Age 45 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Hipparga (Rawa), Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through its Collector for Special Land Acquisition Officer, Osmanabad (P.T. & MIW) No. 1 Osmanabad. ..RESPONDENT .. Shri B.K. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner Shri R.P. Phatake, Addl. GP for respondent /State CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE:- 5th August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the 2 W.P. No. 1694.09 consent of parties taken up for the final hearing. 2. Heard, Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Phatke, the learned Addl. G. P. for the State. 3. Only question involved in the present matter, is whether the petitioner can be permitted to amend the reference. The petitioner had filed Reference U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“ The said Act” for short). During the pendency of the said Reference, the petitioner had filed an application for an amendment seeking enhancement of compensation. The said application is rejected. 4. This Court in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2009 decided on 01-07-2011, relying upon the judgment in a case of State of Maharashtra V. Sitaram Narayan Patil (Since deceased through his L.Rs.) Pralhad Sitaram Patil and Others reported in 2010 (2) Mh. L.J. 387 has 3 W.P. No. 1694.09 held that there is no restriction to file an application for amendment in a Reference U/Sec. 18 of the said Act. 5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "C" and the application at Exh. 22 in LAR No. 224 of 1995 is allowed. No costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] SDM* August-11