27-WP-13785-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 27 WRIT PETITION NO. 13785 OF 2023 The Executive Engineer Vishnupuri Project Division No 1 VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector And Others ….. Mr. Kulkarni Mukul S., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D. R. Kale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State Ms. G. N. Chincholkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4(A) to 4(C) ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 02.02.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner – Acquiring Body is aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2023 passed below Exhibit – 19 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed in L.A.R. No.328/2007, whereby the Application filed by the Original Claimants / Respondent Nos.3 and 4-A to 4-C (hereinafter referred to as ‘Original Claimants’) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be allowed. 3. The Original Claimants have sought to incorporate following pleading by way of amendment:- 1 2026:BHC-AUG:4884 27-WP-13785-2023.odt Claim in Reference [Page 29 / Para 18] Amendment Exhibit – 10 [Page 32] Amendment sought Exhibit – 19 [Page 35/ Para 6] 4 H. 48 R in S. No. 41 8 H. 45 R in S. No. 42 = Rs. 64,65,000/- 1 well of stone = Rs. 1,12,000/- 1 well of cement = Rs.75,000/- 1 pipeline = Rs.75,000/- 1 cement pipeline = Rs. 50,000/- 1 cattle pond = Rs.25,000/- 10 jujuwa trees = Rs.50,000/- 6 Jamb trees = Rs.18,000/- 2 Lime Tree = Rs.4000/- Amendment in respect of compensation for trees 10 jujuwa trees = Rs.1,00,000/- 6 Jamb trees = Rs.60,000/- 2 Lime Tree = Rs.30,000/- 4 H. 48 R in S. No. 41 8 H. 45 R in S. No. 42 = Rs.64,65,000/- 1 well of stone and pipeline = Rs. 9,00,000/- 1 well of cement = Rs.2,10,000/- 1 cement pipeline = Rs.35,000/- 1 cattle pond = Rs.50,000/- * 1400 Mango trees in S. No.41 = Rs.4,06,00,000/- * 1850 Mango trees in S. No.42 = Rs.5,18,00,000/- * Jujuwa trees, Guava trees, kadulimb trees = Rs.1,80,000/- * 451 teakwood trees in S. No.41. = Rs.1,60,00,000/- * 395 teakwood trees in S. No.42 = Rs.1,38,25,000/- Total Rs.68,84,000/- Total Rs.69,92,200/- Total Rs.12,90,95,250/- 4. The learned Counsel Mr. Mukul Kulkarni for the Petitioner vehemently submits that such an amendment ought not have been permitted by the learned Reference Court because the Collector forwards the reference to the Civil Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is confined to considering the reference for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the Original Claimants were not entitled to amend the claim so as to incorporate the claim relating to trees. 5. He further submits that at the time when the reference was filed, the Original Claimants were well aware of the number of trees allegedly acquired. Hence, the present amendment is a deliberate 2 27-WP-13785-2023.odt attempt on the part of the Original Claimants to claim higher compensation in respect of trees which were never acquired. He further submits that during the acquisition proceedings, the entire record was available with the Original Claimants and even a joint measurement was carried out. The joint measurement clearly showed the trees at the relevant time. Therefore, when the reference was filed, the Original Claimants have incorporated the claim regarding the trees. According to the learned Counsel, the present amendment is an afterthought, made with the sole intention of seeking enhanced compensation for the trees. 6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the law laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil (since deceased through his L.Rs.) Pralhad Sitaram Patil and Others reported in 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 387. He further submits that except for the quantum of compensation, the Claimants are not permitted to seek amendment of the reference. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel Ms. Chincholkar appearing for the Original Claimants submits that though the information regarding the trees was given to the concerned Counsel, due to inadvertence, all the trees were not mentioned in the reference. Therefore the learned Trial Court, after considering the averments made by the Claimants, allowed the amendment Application. 8. I have gone through the averments made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Original Claimants. The Original Claimants had filed an Application for amendment of the pleading to incorporate that the trees which were mentioned earlier in the claim are less in numbers and by way of amendment, Claimants 3 27-WP-13785-2023.odt sought only to incorporate the more number of trees, and the Petitioner – Acquiring Body will get sufficient opportunity to contest the claim by showing that no such trees were standing on the land at the time of acquisition. At this stage, the grounds raised by the Petitioner are not required to be considered. The fact that the learned Reference Court permitted the amendment does not imply that all contentions of the Original Claimants are accepted. It is for the Claimants to prove their case and the Petitioner – Acquiring Body has every right to cross-examine and challenge evidence regarding the trees. 9. In view thereof, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 26.06.2023 passed below Exhibit – 19 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed in L.A.R. No.328/2007. 10. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. However, it is made clear that the Petitioner – Acquiring Body has the liberty to raise all the issues regarding the admissibility of the evidence subsequently placed on record by way of amendment, including the question of limitation. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/February-2026 4