Amendment of compensation claims is permissible subject to disentitlement of interest for the delay period.

The Appellant’s land (parcels of 193 sq. m. and 5294 sq. m.) was acquired for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation via notifications issued in 2004 under Sections 4, 6, and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value at Rs. 19,660 per sq. m. in 2005, which was subsequently enhanced by the Reference Court to approximately Rs. 29,956 and Rs. 26,896 for the respective parcels.

The Appellant filed appeals in 2009, initially restricting the claims to Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 50,000 per sq. m. due to alleged financial constraints.

In 2025, the Appellant filed applications under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to amend the appeals to claim a market value of Rs. 1,30,000 per sq. m., citing parity with a recent Coordinate Bench judgment in M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. v. Union of India, which involved adjacent land acquired under the same notification.

The Respondent/DMRC opposed the amendment on grounds of a 16-year delay and financial prejudice.

1. Whether the applications for amendment of the claim amount in land acquisition appeals, filed after a significant delay, are maintainable under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

2. Whether the Appellant is entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay in seeking the amendment.

Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which permits amendment of pleadings at any stage if necessary for determining the real question in controversy.

Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, establishing that amendments should be allowed if they do not change the nature of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs.

Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding appellate jurisdiction to determine "just" market value.

Sections 148 and 149 of the CPC, noting they relate to procedural time extensions and deficiency of court fees rather than the substantive right to amend a claim.

The court observed that the amendment sought was limited to the quantum of compensation and did not alter the foundational facts or the nature of the proceedings, which remained a determination of market value under Section 54 of the Act.

It held that the "nature and character" of the appeals remained unchanged as the Respondents were not required to meet a new case or lead additional evidence.

Regarding the 16-year delay, the court noted that Order VI Rule 17 does not impose a strict time limit if the amendment is necessary for justice.

It found the Appellant’s request for parity with the Anant Raj Projects Ltd. judgment to be a valid ground for seeking higher compensation.

However, the court acknowledged the prejudice caused to the public exchequer by the delay and applied the principle of balancing equities by denying interest for the period of delay.

The holding was subject to the condition that the Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount (if eventually awarded) for the period between the filing of the appeals (2009) and the filing of the amendment applications (2025).

The Appellant was directed to deposit the requisite additional court fees and file the amended memo of appeals within six weeks.

No order as to costs was made.