1 WP 1684.2009 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1684 OF 2009 Premnath Tukaram Nargale (Died) through his L.Rs. 1. Bharatbai W/o Premnath Nargale Age : 67 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Hipparga (Rawa), Tq. Lohara (Tuljapur), Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Anna S/o Premnath Nargale Age : 39 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Hipparga (Rawa), Tq. Lohara (Tuljapur), Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Tukaram S/o Premnath Nargale Age : 27 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Hipparga (Rawa), Tq. Lohara (Tuljapur), Dist. Osmanabad. 4. Surekha W/o Bibhishan Shinde Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Kilaj, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. 5. Sangeeta W/o Pandurang Wadje Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Chiwari, Tq. Tuljapur, 2 WP 1684.2009 - [ J ] Dist. Osmanabad. 6. Asha W/o Mahadeo Khune Age : 37 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Tawashi, Tq. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad. 7. Mahananda W/o Rajendra Sawant Age : 29 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Taka, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Through Collector For Special Land Acquisition Officer, Osmanabad (P.T. & MIW) No. 1, Osmanabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.B.Kale, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Additional Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01/07/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Reference Court rejecting the application for amendment made in claim filed U/s 18 of 3 WP 1684.2009 - [ J ] the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Mr. A.B.Kale, the learned counsel submits that the claimant can file an application for amendment and there is no restriction on the same. The petitioner by virtue of an amendment can claim enhanced compensation. The law is settled in this respect and for the said purpose the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Sitaram Narayan Patil ( since deceased through his L.Rs. ) Pralhad Sitaram Patil and others reported in 2010 ( 2 ) Mh.L.J. 387 and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sakharbai Kondu Bhoje ( Died) through L.Rs. V/s The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and another dated 30/03/2010. 3. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, the learned Additional Govt. Pleader for the State submits that the order has been properly passed by the Court. Once the claim is restricted, the petitioner can not be allowed to enhance the claim. 4. It is trite law that while considering the application for amendment, the merits of the amendment application are not required to be 4 WP 1684.2009 - [ J ] considered. There is no question of relinquishment of claim. The same can not be inferred only on the ground that earlier while filing the reference, the compensation was claimed at lesser rate. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Sitaram referred supra and the case of Sakharbai V/s The Special Land Acquisition Officer referred supra, there is no impediment to allow the application for amendment filed by the petitioner. Whether the petitioner would be entitled for the enhanced amount as claimed, is an issue which would be decided by the Reference Court at the time of final trial. 5. In that light of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ C ’ and an application Exh. 24 seeking amendment is allowed. 6. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, the Civil Application is also disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 1684.2009 - [ J ]