BABUBHAI GOKALBHAI Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. G.M.Amin for the Petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the Respondent - State of Gujarat at length on 31.3.2021 through video conference.

(2.) The Petitioners have filed this Petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India challengin the impugned order dated 7.1.2020 below Exh.16 in Land Reference Case No. 138 of 1999 by the leanred Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the Petitioners' Application filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correction of the name of Manubhai Kalabhai instead of Manubhai Gokalbhai in Land Reference Case No. 138 of 1999 at Exh.16.

(3.) The facts in nutshell are that the Petitioners are the joint owners and occupiers of the land bearing Survey No.31/3/A situated at village Mangbapara, Taluka District Amreli which land was acquired for the purpose of Vadi Irrigation Project. The land Acquisition Officer had declared award on 14.5.1998 and offered the compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq. Meter for Jirayat land and Rs.10.50 paise per sq. Meter for Bagayat land. That through inadvertance on the title in the Reference Application, the name of one of the claimant inadvertantly mentioned as Manubhai Gokalbhai instead of Mabubhai Kalabhai. As the Advocate for the Petitioners have expired, the Petitioners have no knowledge of such typographical mistake. That at the time of withdrawal of compensation a query was raised by the learned trial court that there is a discrepancy in the name of Manubhai Gokalbhai whereas the purshis is signed by Manubhai Kalabhai. On inquiry it was found that there was a typographical mistake in the judgment of the Reference Court. Therefore, Application under Section 151 and 152 of CPC was filed for amendment of the name of the Petitioner - Manubhai Kalabhai. That despite the fact that the other side has not raised any objection, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli has dismissed the application only on the ground of limitation that the petitioners have not filed application within the limitation period.