ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This group of the petitions is taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

2. Hence, RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval and learned AGP Mr. Niraj Ashar waives service of rule for respondent in these petitions.

3. In first petition, challenge made is to the order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("the Code") seeking amendment to claim higher rate of compensation in his reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Old Act"). Similarly, in rest of the matters, challenge made is to the common order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar rejecting applications preferred in different references made under Section 18 of the Old Act seeking amendment to claim higher rate of compensation.

4. Since the issue involved in all the petitions is common, the petitions are heard and decided by the present common judgment.

5. It appears that in pending references of the year 1992, the petitioners preferred applications in the month of March, 2014 seeking amendment to claim the higher rate of compensation. However, such applications were rejected by the Reference Court on the ground that the petitioners have not provided any reasons for the correction sought for and that since the trial of the reference has begun, the applications made by the petitioners are not maintainable.

6. Learned advocate Mr. GM Amin for the petitioners submitted that the law provides for just and adequate compensation for the lands acquired, and there is no prohibition in asking for higher rate of compensation at any stage of the reference. Mr. Amin submitted that even at the appellate stage, the amendment to claim higher rate of compensation is permissible and therefore there is no good reason to refuse amendment to claim the higher rate of compensation even if the trial has begun.

7. Learned AGPs Mr. Ronak Raval and Mr. Niraj Ashar, on the other hand, submitted that the references are very old and in such references, at a very belated stage, the petitioners preferred applications seeking amendment to claim higher rate of compensation and the Reference Court since found that the trial has begun and since there are no reasons provided for amendment in the references, the impugned orders are made by the Reference Court.

8. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, it appears that though the petitioners sought for amendment in the rate of compensation at belated stage, however, when the compensation is to be determined based on the available evidence, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in permitting the petitioners to make amendment in the rate of compensation. Therefore, simply, because the trial has begun is no ground to refuse the amendment sought for by the petitioners. It is required to note that the amendment prayed for by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is not as regards any other particulars concerning measurement etc. of the land acquired but it is only to ask for higher rate of the compensation. In such view of the matter, no special reasons were required to be assigned by the petitioners to seek amendment to claim higher rate of compensation.

9. In the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (Dead) Through Lrs. and Others Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 9 SCC 325, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph Nos. 16 to 29, 32 and 33 as under:-

"16.An analysis of section 18 of the Act would show that any person interested who does not accept the award can, by written application to the Land Acquisition Collector, require the matter to be referred for determination of the court in regard to any one of the following matters :

(a) Objection to the measurement of the land;

(b) Objection to the amount of compensation;

(c)