NIRMAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landowner-claimants have come up in revision against the order of the Land Acquisition Court declining their prayer for amendment of the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') to incorporate the plea that the land acquired is situate within the revenue limits of village Qilla Nau, tehsil and district Faridkot.

(2.) There is no dispute about the facts. The petitioner's land has been acquired. They were dissatisfied with the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and got the reference made to the Land Acquisition Court under Section 18 of the Act. In the application it was stated by them that the land acquired is situated in the revenue estate of Faridkot. Subsequently, they came to know that the acquired land is situated in the revenue estate of Qilla Nau, tehsil and district Faridkot. They moved an application under Order 6 rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, for amendment of the application under Section 18 of the Act. The application was declined by the Land Acquisition Court vide order dated February 1, 1984.

(3.) The application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, was declined only on the ground that the petitioners could not be allowed to change their position because earlier they had consistently maintained that the land was situated in the revenue limits of Faridkot.