UNION OF INDIA Vs. SIS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision under the Code of Civil Procedure a-ainst the decision of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 24th August, 1971 passed during the hearing of a re- -ference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby the application for a refernce mder Section 18 of of the Act was peimitted to be amend- aj. The facts of the ca'e are a little unusual because the original reference petition Bioved by the respondent Sis Ram to the Land Acquisition Collector had mentioned in the application field No. 38/1 as one of the areas involved in the acquisition, la the reference, made under Section 19 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector stated that field No. 38/1 was sot included in the acquisition and. therefore, no refe- rence concerning the same could be made. While staling the situation and extent of the land involved in the reference under Section 19 (1) of the Act, the Collector stated in a note that this land was not being incluled in the reference as it was not acquired. The reference itself was made by the Collector some time in 1969 and the application under Section 18 praying for a reference t^ the Land Acquisition court was made to the Land Acquisition Collector on 24th December, 1968.

(2.) . Before the Additional District Judge, the clairntanl-responclent moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an amendment of the reference application on 11th August, 1971, i. e., nearly three years after the original application. In this application, it was stated that the petitioner had received a notice under Section 9 of the Act concerning the acquisition in which the land in question had been described as Khasra No. 38/1 and no notica had been served on the claimant with respect to KhasraNo. 38/2, and hence the claimant had been denied an opprtunity to seek a reference wi(h respect to Khasra No. 38/2. It was, therefore, prayed that the reference petition should be allowed to be amended by subst- ituting Khasra No. 38/2 in place of Khaira No. 38/1, the mistake in the reference petition having occurred due to an incoirect number having been mentioned in ihe notice issued to the claimant under Section 9 of the Act by the Lard Acquisition Collector. The power of the Court to make such an amendment was challenged before the Additional District Judge, however, the amendment has been allowed on pay- ment of Rs. 10.00 as costs.

(3.) . The order allowing the amendment has been challenged by the Union of India on the the ground that the reference cannot be changed by the Land Acquitision Court which is bound by the terms of the reference made under Section 19 of the Act This proposition is disputed by the respondent and it is also submitted that costs have already been accepted and hence the petitoner is dis-enlitled to challenge the amendent allowed.