V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order and decree of the Subordinate Judee s Court, Peddapuram in I A. No. 607/84 in O. P. No. 30/ 83 dated 11-7-1985.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are : The petitioner, who is a minor, is the owner of the land measuring Ac. 2-41 cents in S. No. 236/2 of G. Ragama- peta village in Peddapuram taluk. The said land was acquired for purposes of providing housesites to the poor and under Award No. 36/79, dt. 13-12-79 compensation was also fixed. The petitioner requested to refer the matter for enhancement of the compensation to the Civil Court under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Court. But the reference was taken under section 31 (2) of the Act only, but not under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. Hence, the petitioner filed the present I. A. , seeking amendment to include reference under section 18 of the Act also. The lower Court considered it and found that the reference made was only under section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore the amendment cannot be permitted.

( 3 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter under section 18 also, but by mistake or over-sight the lower Court missed to note the same. Further, the learned counsel submitted that under section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure code are made applicable to the proceedings before the Court dealing with matters under Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the lower Court ought to have allowed the amendment sought for since under Order 6 Rule 17 and section 151 of C. P. C,, read with section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the court has ample power to allow the amendment to meet the ends of justice. In support of his submission that a request was made to the Land Acquisition officer to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act, a copy of reference made is filed before this Court which in its paragraph reasons for the reference: states :"the land under acquisition belongs to Goli Janakirama Rao S/o sriramulu, who is a minor. Sri Goli Sriramulu Minor Guardian of land owner requested to refer the matter to the Court u/s. 18 of the land Acquisition Act. . . . . "the copy of reference clearly shows that there was a request for the matter being referred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Now, section 53 of the Act states:"53. Code of Civil Procedure to apply to proceedings before court: Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act. "no doubt, the Court adjudicating the reference under the Land Acquisition act is a Civil Court and therefore under Section 53 of the Act governed by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure so long as there is no inconsistency with the provisions in the Land Acquisition Act. On the question whether the Court has power to permit amendments under Order 6 rule 17 C. P. C. , it is held in State vs. Alameluthayammal that the Court has the power nder the said prpvisipp, the only exception being not to permit amendments seeking enhancement of the compensation beyond what has been originally claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer.

( 4 ) IN Union of India vs. Sisram # it is held that the Court deciding the reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is,a Civil Court and as per section 53 the Court has got ample power to grant amendments under Order 6 rule 17 C. P. C.

( 5 ) AGAIN a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held in Makhan Lal vs. Secretary of State #"when a District Judge acts on a reference by the Collector under section 18, he is acting as a Court and not as a persona designatd". Therefore, in view of the above decisions, the scope of section 53 of the Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document