Genai Rai vs State of Bihar

Satya Brata Sanyal, J.—This civil revision arises out of a reference u/s 18, Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act''). Petitioner-claimant''s prayer for amendment of the reference has been refused. The Subordinate Judge refused the relief sought for on the ground that there being no provision for amendment under the Act, he is unable to grant the relief sought for.

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it.

It is true that there is no provision under the Act which provides for amendment of an objection petition giving rise to the reference u/s 18 of the Act. A reference u/s 18 of the Act, is on the basis of a written application to the Collector to refer the matter for the determination of the Court. It may relate to measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation. The application is also required to set out grounds on which the objection to the award is taken. Section 53 of the Act provides applicability of Civil P. C. to all proceedings under the Act save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. According to the Court below, the claimant cannot be treated either as a plaintiff or a defendant in a proceeding u/s 18 of the Act. Section 141, Civil P. C. envisages the procedure provided in the Civil P. C. with respect to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. The proceeding u/s 18 of the Act is a civil proceeding. Under the explanation the expression ''proceeding'' includes even a proceeding under Order IX of the Code. There is no need of any plaint being filed in a proceeding under Order IX. A proceeding under Order IX is initiated by filing of an application. A reference under the Act is also initiated by filing of an application setting out the grounds for the relief sought for from the Civil Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that merely because no plaint is required to be filed for initiating a proceeding u/s 18 of the Act, the claimant can be refused the relief of an amendment of the application for reference which is an application initiating a civil proceeding under the Act.

3A. The amendment sought for is for substituting Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in place of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. It is stated that the wrong figure was given due to the mistake of the scribe. Contrary to Section 9 of the Act, Section 18 does not in express terms require the claimant to state in his petition of reference what specific amount he claims as compensation. Section 25 provides that the Court cannot award anything in excess of the amount which the claimant had mentioned in his statement pursuant to a notice u/s 9 of the Act. It is, therefore, manifest that a reference petition u/s 18 of the Act objecting to the Amount of compensation awarded by the Collector would be quite in order even if the claimant does not value his claim in his reference petition at any amount See Province of Bengal Vs. P.L. Nun, K.C. Pal, Receivers appointed by High Court, . This is one aspect of the matter. The constraints which apply to an amendment of the plaint, in my opinion, also applied to the amendment of the application of a reference. Ordinarily it would not be allowed if the amendment changes the nature of the claim but, where the nature of the claim remains unaltered, I do not see any reason why the amendment can be refused. In the case of Zameer Ahmad and Others Vs. State of U.P., , it was held that the Court below improperly refused to allow the amendment, as a claimant cannot be prohibited from amending the objection filed u/s 18(1) of the Act. In the case of R. P. Conduit Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India ILR (1978) Delhi 513, the Court applied the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 to a proceeding under the Act. The same view seems to have been taken by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Province of Bengal v. P.L. Nun (supra) where it was held that the Court hearing a reference u/s 18 of the Act has the power to allow the reference petition to be amended, subject to the limitation that it cannot allow an amendment which would have the effect of introducing a new matter which had not been referred to it for decision by the Collector u/s 18. The said case related to an amendment with respect to the amount of compensation only.

Learned counsel appearing for the State relied upon Bhadar Munda and Another Vs. Dhuchua Oraon, in support of his contention that, in spite of Section 53 of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court did not apply Order 22, Civil P. C. to a proceeding u/s 18 or Section 30. In my opinion, the said case is distinguished on its very face as their Lordships observed : "The application of Order 22 is inconsistent with the very nature and scope of the proceedings under Sections 18 and 30". The Court applied Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. as in their Lordships'' view the said provision was not inconsistent to a reference u/s 30 of the Act. A reference was also made by the learned counsel to another Divison Bench decision in the case of Shyam Shankar Sahai and Others Vs. State of Bihar, where it was held that Court can recall an order dismissing a reference for default under its inherent jurisdiction. It was held that a land acquisition reference case cannot be dismissed in default for non-appearance of the claimant. Order 9, Rule 8 read with Section 151 of the Code or Section 53 of the Act will not apply to such a case. The said case is also distinguishable. Similarly, the reliance of the learned counsel appearing for the State in the case of The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. C.R. Subramania Aiyar, is misplaced. In that case it was held that it would not be open to a Claimant to make out a fresh case, whether by way of supplementary claims to compensation or otherwise. I am also of the opinion that a party cannot be allowed to change the nature of his claim by way of an amendment petition. This case, therefore, also is not decisive of the question before me.

I am of the firm view that the Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction in refusing amendment of the reference petition on the ground of lack of power under the Act. As there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act which is inconsistent with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17, the Court hearing a reference u/s 18 has the power to allow the reference petition to be amended, subject to the constraints of amendment of a plaint and/or a written statement, i.e. law of limitation, changing the nature of the claim etc. 1 respectfully follow the law laid down by Calcutta. Delhi and Allahabad ''High Courts.

In the result, this civil revision is allowed. The order refusing amendment of the reference application is set aside. The claimant is permitted to make the amendment sought for. There will, however, be no order as to costs.