Judgment 1. This civil revision arises out of a reference under S.18, Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). Petitioner-claimant"s prayer for amendment of the reference has been refused. The Subordinate Judge refused the relief sought for on the ground that there being no provision for amendment under the Act, he is unable to grant the relief sought for. 2. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it. 3. It is true that there is no provision under the Act which provides for amendment of an objection petition giving rise to the reference under S.18 of the Act. A reference under S.18 of the Act, is on the basis of a written application to the Collector to refer the matter for the determination of the Court. It may relate to measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation. The application is also required to set out grounds on which the objection to the award is taken. Sec. 53 of the Act provides applicability of Civil P. C. to all proceedings under the Act save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act. According to the Court below, the claimant cannot be treated either as a plaintiff or a defendant in a proceeding under S.18 of the Act. Sec.141, Civil P. C. envisages the procedure provided in the Civil P. C. with respect to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. The proceeding under S.18 of the Act is a civil proceeding. Under the explanation the expression "proceeding" includes even a proceeding under O.IX of the Code. There is no need of any plaint being filed in a proceeding under O.IX. A proceeding under O.IX is initiated by filing of an application. A reference under the Act is also initiated by filing of an application setting out the grounds for the relief sought for from the Civil Court. There is no need of any plaint being filed in a proceeding under O.IX. A proceeding under O.IX is initiated by filing of an application. A reference under the Act is also initiated by filing of an application setting out the grounds for the relief sought for from the Civil Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion, that merely because no plaint is required to be filed for initiating a proceeding under S.18 of the Act, the claimant can be refused the relief of an amendment of the application for reference which is an application initiating a civil proceeding under the Act. 3A. The amendment sought for is for substituting Rs. 1,00,000.00 per acre in place of Rs. 50,000.00 per acre. It is stated that the wrong figure was given due to the mistake of the scribe. Contrary to S.9 of the Act, S.18 does not in express terms require the claimant to state in his petition of reference what specific amount he claims as compensation. Sec.25 provides that the Court cannot award anything in excess of the amount which the claimant had mentioned in his statement pursuant to a notice under S.9 of the Act. It is, therefore, manifest that a reference petition under S.18 of the Act objecting to the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector would be quite in order even if the claimant does not value his claim in his reference petition at any amount (See AIR 1945 Cal 312 - Province of Bengal V/s. P. L. Nun). This is one aspect of the matter. The constraints which apply to an amendment of the plaint, in my opinion, also applied to the amendment of the application of a reference. Ordinarily it would not be allowed if the amendment changes the nature of the claim but, where the nature of the claim remains unaltered, I do not see any reason why the amendment can be refused. In the case of Zameer Ahmad V/s. State of U. P., AIR 1981 All 92 , it was held that the Court below improperly refused to allow the amendment, as a claimant cannot be prohibited from amending the objection filed under S.18(1) of the Act. In the case of R. P. Conduit Manufacturing Co. V/s. Union of India, ILR (1978) 1 Delhi 513, the Court applied the provisions of O.6, R.17 to a proceeding under the Act. In the case of R. P. Conduit Manufacturing Co. V/s. Union of India, ILR (1978) 1 Delhi 513, the Court applied the provisions of O.6, R.17 to a proceeding under the Act. The same view seems to have been taken by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Province of Bengal V/s. P. L. Nun (supra) where it was held that the Court hearing a reference under S.18 of the Act has the power to allow the reference petition to be amended, subject to the limitation that it cannot allow an amendment which would have the effect of introducing a new matter which had not been referred to it for decision by the Collector under S.18. The said case related to an amendment with respect to the amount of compensation only. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State relied upon B. Munda V/s. D. Oraon, AIR 1970 Pat 209 in support of his contention that, in spite of S.53 of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court did not apply O.22, Civil P. C. to a proceeding under S.18 or S.30. In my opinion, the said case is distinguished on its very face as their Lordships observed : "The application of O.22 is inconsistent with the very nature and scope of the proceedings under Ss.18 and 30". The Court applied O.1, R.10, C.P.C. as in their Lordships" view the said provision was not inconsistent to a reference under S.30 of the Act. A reference was also made by the learned counsel to another Division Bench decision in the case of S. S. Sahai V/s. State, AIR 1974 Pat 176 where it was held that Court can recall an order dismissing a reference for default under its inherent jurisdiction. It was held that a land acquisition reference case cannot be dismissed in default for non-appearance of the claimant. Order 9, R.8 read with S.151 of the Code or S.53 of the Act will not apply to such a case. The said case is also distinguishable. Similarly, the reliance of the learned counsel appearing for the State in the case of Secy. of State V/s. Subramania, AIR 1930 Mad 576 is misplaced. In that case it was held that it would not be open to a Claimant to make out a fresh case, whether by way of supplementary claims to compensation or otherwise. Similarly, the reliance of the learned counsel appearing for the State in the case of Secy. of State V/s. Subramania, AIR 1930 Mad 576 is misplaced. In that case it was held that it would not be open to a Claimant to make out a fresh case, whether by way of supplementary claims to compensation or otherwise. I am also of the opinion that a party cannot be allowed to change the nature of his claim by way of an amendment petition. This case, therefore, also is not decisive of the question before me. 5. I am of the firm view that the Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction in refusing amendment of the reference petition on the ground of lack of power under the Act. As there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act which is inconsistent with the provisions of O.6, R.17, the Court hearing a reference under S.18 has the power to allow the reference petition to be amended, subject to the constraints of amendment of a plaint and/or a written statement, i.e. law of limitation, changing the nature of the claim etc. I respectfully follow the law laid down by Calcutta, Delhi and Allahabad High Courts. 6. In the result, this civil revision is allowed. The order refusing amendment of the reference application is set aside. The claimant is permitted to make the amendment sought for. There will, however, be no order as to costs.