P. KRISHNA MOORTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE defendants are the revision petitioners and the revision is against the Order, by which, lower court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint under order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) THE respondent herein as the plaintiff, has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30-9-1988 against the defendants in respect of the property i. e. , 34 guntas performance, in regard to the decree passed in the case, the Supreme Court felt that the direction given by the high court was not as such proper. Their lordships held that, if the subject-matter of the suit for specific performance ceased to exist during the pendency of the suit, the contract became incapable of performance for no fault of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is only entitled to compensation as provided for under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. Pointing out the difference between the english law and the Indian law, at page 1609, their lordships observed as follows:"when the plaintiff by his option made specific performance impossible, Section 21 does not entitle him to seek damages. That position is common to both Section 2 of lord cairn's Act, 1858 and Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. But in Indian law the contract, for no fault of the plaintiff, becomes impossible of performance. Section 21 enables award of compensation in lieu and substitution of specific performance". thereafter, their lordships allowed the plaint to be amended and considered the question as to what is the quantum of compensation which the plaintiff is entitled. In that context, their lordships took into account the land acquisition compensation to be the measure of damages subject, of course, to the deduction therefrom of money value of the services, time and energy expended by the appellant in pursuing the claims of compensation and the expenditure incurred by him in the litigation culminating in the award. The compensation due to the plaintiff was also fixed accordingly. 11. The compensation due to the plaintiff was also fixed accordingly. 11. On the basis of the dictum in the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the respondent persuaded me to take the view that the Supreme Court has taken the view that, when the subject-matter of the suit for specific performance is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, during the pendency of the proceedings, the agreement holder is entitled to the compensation that is awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. I am afraid that, that is not the dictum laid down in the aforesaid decision. The Supreme Court proceeds on the basis that when the land is acquired during the pendency of the suit for specific performance, the agreement become incapable of performance. But their lordship have considered the position of law under the english law and under the Indian law as to what is the relief that can be granted to the plaintiff in such circumstances. Their lordships held that, inspite of the land being acquired, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation as provided for under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, for, the contract became unenforceable not due to any fault of the plaintiff. As stated earlier, their lordships further held that unlike the english law, under Indian law, even in such circumstances, Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act enables awarding of compensation in lieu of and substitution of specific performance; the mere fact that their lordships took into account the compensation due under the land acquisition compensation as the measure of damages for fixing the compensation, does not mean that the plaintiff, in such a suit, is entitled to all the benefits which accrued under the land acquisition proceedings. The agreement holder cannot be substituted in the place of an owner. The agreement holder, when his contract becomes unenforceable, is only entitled to compensation as provided for under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act which the court is entitled to determine taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, in considering the measure of damages, the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act for the land may be a relevant factor. The aforesaid decision has not laid down the law that the plaintiff in such a suit is to be substituted in the place of the land owner in regard to the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act. The aforesaid decision has not laid down the law that the plaintiff in such a suit is to be substituted in the place of the land owner in regard to the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid decision cannot help the respondent-plaintiff in contending that he is entitled to all the benefits arising under the land acquisition proceedings. 12. In this case, the plaintiff sought for amendment of the plaint to add a prayer to the effect that he is entitled to all the benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to earlier in sunil kumar jain's case, supra, the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of the land acquisition proceedings. At best, he may be entitled to claim compensation under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, in case, he is entitled to specific performance of the contract agreement and the land acquisition proceedings are completed and the agreement becomes incapable of performance thereby. But the application for amendment in this case is not for compensation under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, but claiming the entire land acquisition compensation which he is not entitled to. Accordingly, the lower court acted without jurisdiction in allowing the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff. 13. It is made clear that, if the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract and if the land is acquired during the pendency of the proceedings, he may be entitled to claim compensation under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. The proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 21 provides that, where the plaintiff has not claimed any such compensation in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceedings, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just to include such claim for compensation. The plaintiff may be entitled to get the plaint amended in accordance with Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, if he so chooses to do, but, certainly a plaint cannot be amended by claiming the entire benefits arising out of the land acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, i make it clear that the decision in this revision will not stand in the way of the respondent-plaintiff seeking appropriate amendment of the plaint in accordance with Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. Accordingly, i make it clear that the decision in this revision will not stand in the way of the respondent-plaintiff seeking appropriate amendment of the plaint in accordance with Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. In the result, i allow this civil revision petition, set aside the order of the lower court dated 27-10-1995 and dismiss the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff will be free to file an application for amendment seeking compensation in accordance with Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .