1 WP 7921.2010 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7921 OF 2010 1. Ravindra Bhagwan Choudhari Age : 36 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Pimpri Nandu, Tq Muktainagar (Edlabad), Dist Jalgaon 2. Kishor Bhagwan Chaudhari Age : 34 Yrs., Occ. Agril., Pimpri Nandu Tq Muktainagar (Edlabad) Dist Jalgaon .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The Collector Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer Hatnoor Waghur Project, Opp. Mayadevi Mandir Jalgaon 3. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Land and Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.P.Tiwari,Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. S.D.Dhongde, Advocate for Resp.No. 2. 2 WP 7921.2010 - ( J ) CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 22/06/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who had filed Suit for declaration and further directions against the respondents to acquire the property. During the pendency of the Suit, the petitioners moved an application for amendment, thereby seeking incorporation of additional property, so also addition of party i.e. addition of co-owners as defendants. The said amendment application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment application would not change the nature of the Suit. The other co-owners had not joined so as to avoid any technical flaw, they are required to be made as party defendants. Even the other property was being affected by the Project and as such the same was being added. None the less, the nature of the Suit would remain same. 4. Mr. Dhongade, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 3 WP 7921.2010 - ( J ) vehemently opposed the petition contending that the petitioner would be beneficiary of the project. The other co-owners, who are sought to be added, have not themselves come-forward. As they had not come-forward to seek the relief, the petitioners can not add them. It is only to avoid the taxes and the liability, the Suit has been filed. 5. While deciding the amendment application, the merits of the amendment are not required to be considered, but the learned trial court while dealing with the amendment application has precisely done the same. Whether the petitioners would be the beneficiary of the project or not, would be decided after the evidence is led. It would be too premature to give the conclusive finding on the same. The Suit is for declaration and seeking directions against the respondents to acquire the property. By the proposed amendment, the nature of the Suit would not change, but only the additional property is sought to be included. 6. In light of the above, I do not see any impediment in allowing the amendment application. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The application for amendment ( Exh. 16 ) in R.C.S. No. 254 of 2003 is allowed. 4 WP 7921.2010 - ( J ) 8. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 7921.2010 - ( J )