DILIP VASANTRAO DHOPE, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY D Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, COLLECTOR, WASHIM, DISTT WAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.M. Kadukar, AGP for the respondent no. 1 and Shri V.G. Palshikar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 have shown willingness to argue the matter and considering the facts of the case, the petition is taken up for hearing.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the trial Court by which the application (Exh. 21) filed by him seeking permission to amend the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is rejected. The learned trial Judge has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner, by the proposed amendment, is seeking to raise the claim in respect of mango trees after the period of six years of filing of the reference application. The facts on record show that the claim of the petitioner is that the mango trees which stood in the acquired land were aged about 14 years.

(3.) Though there is delay on the part of the petitioner in moving the application, considering the nature of controversy, in my view, the learned trial Judge should have adopted a pragmatic view. In my view, the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity to putforth and substantiate his claim sought by the proposed amendment. I find that the impugned order cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and the following order is necessary to subserve the ends of justice: