RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 24 of 2013 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 32 of 2008-09 whereby the learned court below dismissed the application of the petitioner dated 01.09.2014 filed for amendment of the application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the CPC").
(3.) The factual background of the case as stated by the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner situated at Mouza Dhanbad, Mouza No. 51, Khata No. 38 (121) Plot No. 1577 area 1/2 decimal, Plot No. 1579 area 4 1/2 decimals and Plot No. 1585 area 1 decimal (hereinafter to be called the "said land") were to be acquired for the purpose of construction of ring road by Jharia Rehabilitation and Development Authority, Dhanbad and for that purpose, a notification No. 392 dated 12.05.2011 was published in the local newspaper by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. The petitioner came to know that the said land has been acquired and award No. 19 for Rs. 76,60,800/- has been wrongly made in favour of the private respondents. The petitioner filed objection under Section 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the L.A. Act") vide Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 24 of 2013 for determination of the person who is entitled for payment of compensation and also for determination of proper compensation of the land acquired, which was subsequently referred to the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad and was registered as Reference Case No. 24 of 2013. The respondents were issued notices and in the meantime, the petitioner filed a petition for amendment in the reference application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the CPC stating that due to inadvertence, plot No. 1585 area 1 decimal has not been included in the schedule portion. The learned Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 rejected the application for amendment by holding that the petitioner is trying to incorporate such lands, which were not incorporated in the original reference.;