(1) WP. 43.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 43 OF 2010 Devidas Khushal Bhole Age : 43 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o : Beli, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Uppar Tapi Project, Hatnoor (I), Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon 2. The Executive Engineer, Waghur Project Division, Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon .. Respondents ... Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 12TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 27.2.2009 rendered by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jalgaon in Land Acquisition Reference case no. 279 of 2003. By that (2) WP. 43.2010 order, the Application filed by the petitioner for the purpose of amendment to the claim in respect of the enhanced compensation has been rejected. The reference Court held that in view of "State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Wani 2008(6) All M.R. 65 (D.B.)" such kind of amendment in respect of claim for enhanced compensation cannot be permitted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State. 4. The petitioner's contention is that though, he had claimed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- yet it was improper statement made due to inadvertence. He contended that market value of the acquired land was Rs.7,46,400/- per hector. 5. The view taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in "State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Wani" was considered by the Hon'ble Full Bench In "State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil and others 2010(2) Mh.L.J. 387. The Hon'ble Full Bench (3) WP. 43.2010 held that the claimant cannot introduce any other objection after filing the reference application under section 18(2) before the Reference Court or in an appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Still, however, he can claim enhancement in the compensation thereafter. Needless to say, the view taken by the Full Bench supports contention of the petitioner that enhancement of amount can be claimed by way of amendment and, therefore, the impugned order is un-sustainable. 6. Taking overall view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp