1 86-WP-12327-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12327 OF 2021 KERBA BHUJANGA GADHAVE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. Upendra B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent/State Mr. V. D. Patnurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned AGP for respondent/State and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28/08/2020, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed, below Exhibit-17 in L.A.R. No.24/2012, whereby the application filed by petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the land reference was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that when the reference was filed, inadvertently instead of 300 mango trees it was mentioned as 19 mango trees. He submits that, as petitioners want to only amend the pleadings and it is for the claimants to prove the same by leading evidence, the trial Court ought not have rejected the same. SVH 2026:BHC-AUG:4222 2 86-WP-12327-21.odt 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposed the petition contending that the application was filed at the belated stage. He points out that, if there were really 300 trees at the time when the land was acquired, the claimants ought not have missed this important aspect while filing the reference. Therefore, it is evident that they want to improve their case by way of amendment. After thirteen years of filing the reference new theory has been carved out so as to get the benefit. As far as compensation is concerned, if such theory is to be accepted it will create unnecessary monetary burden on the public exchequer. Trial Court has, therefore, rightly rejected the application. 5. I have gone through the rival contentions and documents placed on record. As per contentions of the petitioners, at the time of filing of reference, inadvertently petitioners have mentioned 19 mango trees instead of 300 mango trees, therefore, by way of amendment they want to amend the reference. Permitting the petitioners to amend the reference does not mean that the petitioners will be entitled to receive the compensation for aforesaid mango trees. Claimants are required to prove the same by leading evidence and on that respondent acquiring body will also be having opportunity to contest the same by leading evidence. In view of that, I find that trial Court ought not have rejected the SVH 3 86-WP-12327-21.odt application at Exhibit-17 seeking amendment in the reference. 6. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Order dated 28/08/2020, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed, below Exhibit-17 in L.A.R. No.24/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application at Exhibit-17 in L.A.R. No.24/2012 is allowed. 7. It is made clear that the acquiring body is at liberty to contest the claim of petitioners on it’s own merits after amendment is carried out in the reference. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) SVH