AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Being aggrieved with the order(s) dated 22.08.2009 passed in Reference Cases (M.J.C.) Nos.28/2009,29/2009,30/2009, 31/2009 & 32/2009 by the IX Addl. District Judge (FTC), Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court"), whereby the application''s for amendment of the written statement(s) have been dismissed by the Reference Court, the petitioner/non-applicant no.1 has filed the aforesaid writ petitions. Since the order(s) impugned dismissing the amendment application(s)''and the amendment(s) sought to be incorporated by the petitioner(s) are all most identical in all the cases, therefore, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
In the proceedings, at the instance of private respondents, u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), the petitioner/ non-applicant no.1 filed application (s) under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of their written statement(s). In the said applications, it was contended that the private respondents were not entitled to receive compensation under the Act, therefore, the earlier pleadings taken in the written statement(s) that the "award is just and proper which does not require any change" should be deleted and in its place, it be incorporated that "in view of the above pleadings the award is void." In nut shell, the petitioner who was supporting the awards passed in respective land acquisition cases by filing the written statements and opposing the enhancement of compensation, now sought for amendment to incorporate that the award itself was illegal and the private respondents were not entitled to receive any amount of compensation.
The Reference Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the amendment applications holding that the amendment sought was beyond the purview of the reference and the amendment, if allowed, shall change the nature of written statement.
Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) would submit that the Reference Court erred in law in rejecting the amendment application(s) as the proposed amendment was necessary for lawful disposal of the reference cases.
On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents opposed these arguments. While supporting the order(s) passed by the Reference Court, he argued that by amending the written statement(s), the original pleadings in relation to admitting the award passed in favour of the private respondents cannot be withdrawn.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petitions.
Admittedly, in different land acquisition cases, the awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and certain compensation was awarded to the private respondents. This was not acceptable to them, therefore, the applications were filed before the concerned Authority and references were made under the provisions of sections 18 & 19 of the Act on the instance of the private respondents. When the petitioner, a beneficiary, appeared before the Reference Court, he filed written statement(s) and opposed the enhancement of a compensation only, and in many paragraphs of the written statement(s), the petitioner, supporting the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, made pleadings in clear words that the award(s) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer are just and proper; they are in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act; therefore, no change can be made in the award(s). These are the admissions of the petitioner in clear words in Para 20 of the written statement(s) separately filed before the Reference Court in all above cases.
By way of the application (s) filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., now the petitioner wants to resile from the said to admissions made in the written statement(s) saying that the awards were void ab-initio thereby meaning that the private respondents were not entitled to receive any amount of compensation.
In Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and others AIR 2005 SCW 4645 referring to the decisions rendered in the matters of M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another vs. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co AIR 1977 SC 6801 ; Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal and Others, and Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad and Others Vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) thr. Lrs. and Others, the Apex Court held that before an amendment can be carried out in terms of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to apply its mind on several factors including, viz., whether by reason of such amendment the party intends to resile from an express admission made by him. In such an event, the amendment may not be allowed.
In the present case, if the amendments are allowed, many admissions made by the petitioner in the written statements, shall stand withdrawn.
More over, as stated above, these are the references made on the instance of the private respondents for enhancement of amount of compensation and in view of the provisions of section 18 of the Act which provides that "any person interested who has not accepted the award may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested"; the amendments of the above nature filed by the petitioners cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Reference Court was fully justified in dismissing the application(s) for amendment of the written statement(s) filed by the petitioner in these cases.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the order(s) passed by the Reference Court, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitions have no merits, the same are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, Caveat Petitions No. 469/2009,470/2009,471/2009, 472/2009 & 473/2009 stand discharged and they are also disposed of.
No order as to cost(s).