A claimant cannot amend a compensation claim to recharacterize acquired agricultural land as non-agricultural.

The petitioner sought a reference for enhanced compensation for acquired land. After the parties had adduced evidence and the matter was posted for final arguments, he applied under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend his claim petition, asserting that the land had non-agricultural or residential potential. The proposed amendment relied on a communication from the Vijayapura Urban Development Authority stating that the land fell within its planning jurisdiction.

The Reference Court rejected the application as belated. The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner could amend his claim petition at the final-arguments stage to assert that the acquired land had non-agricultural potential

Whether the petitioner could rely on the Urban Development Authority’s communication before the Reference Court without amending the claim petition

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings, subject to applicable legal limits.

Relying on Ambya Kalya Mhatre (Dead) Through LRs. & Others v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 9 SCC 325, the Court noted that a claimant may specify or amend compensation claims before the Reference Court, but cannot, after the applicable limitation period, change the nature or category of the objection.

The proceedings were governed by Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The proposed amendment did more than rely on new supporting material: it sought to change the petitioner’s case from one concerning agricultural land to one asserting non-agricultural or residential potential. The Court considered that change impermissible under the principle stated in Ambya Kalya Mhatre, particularly given that the application was filed after evidence had been adduced and when the matter was posted for final arguments.

However, the existing claim already referred to development in the surrounding area. The Authority’s communication could therefore be placed before the Reference Court as material relevant to market value, without altering the pleadings.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without interfering with the order rejecting the amendment. It permitted the petitioner to file the 2 April 2026 communication before the Reference Court by memo and directed that court to consider it when determining the claim on its merits.