1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8030 OF 2009 1 Sakharbai Kondu Bhoje, died, through L.R.: 1A Dwarkabai Daga Gunjal, age: 45 years; 2 Bhausaheb Narhari Bhide, age: 35 years, Occ: Agri., 3 Shakar Bajirao Patil, age: 67 years, Occ: Agri., All R/o Khadki (Bk.), Tq.Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. Petitioners Versus 1 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, Tq. and District Jalgaon. 2 The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Jalgaon. Respondents Mr.A.B.Kale, advocate for petitioners. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 30th March, 2010. ORAL JUDMGENT: 1 Heard Shri Kale, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri 2 Suryawanshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The orders dated 10.08.2009, passed by Reference Court, below Exhibit-22 in L.A.R. No.1449/1998 and below Exhibit-29 in L.A.R. No.1460 of 1998, thereby rejecting the applications tendered by petitioners – original claimants seeking amendment to the respective Reference Applications/Claim Petitions, are subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3 Petitioners herein presented Claim petitions seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation payable to them by seeking Reference to the Civil Court. It is stated that Reference Applications are pending for adjudication. During pendency of Reference Applications, petitioners herein, original claimants presented separate applications seeking amendment to the claim petitions. By virtue of proposed amendment, petitioners – original claimants are seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation than what was claimed in the claim petitions presented earlier. In effect, claimants are seeking more amount of compensation by virtue of proposed amendment. 4 The Reference Court has rejected the applications placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ambya Kalya Mhatre, reported in 2009 (1) MhLJ 781; and in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Laxman Wani, reported in 2009 (1) MhLJ 856. 5 The view adopted by this Court earlier in the reported 3 judgments is no more good law and the Full Bench of this Court has considered the aspect and has taken a view that claimants are entitled to seek amendment to the claim petition pending before Reference Court. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil, reported in 2010 (2) ALL MR 508, the Reference Court is required to deal with the application for amendment on its own merits and in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, writ petition needs to be allowed. 6 In the result, Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.08.2009, passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, below Exhibit-22 in L.A.R. No.1449/1998 and below Exhibit-29 in L.A.R. No.1460/1998 are quashed and set aside. The Reference Court shall deal with the applications in accordance with provisions of law. 7 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp803009