Judgment Mohit S. Shah, J.— Rule Mr. U.A. Trivedi, learned Addl. Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd March, 2009 of the learned 3rd Joint District, Judge, Mehsana rejecting the petitioner’s application Exh.12 for amendment of the claim, in Land Reference Case No. 1075 of 2004. 3. The petitioner’s land came to be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of constructing Dharoi Dam. On receipt of the notice under Section 9 of the Act, the petitioner made claim before the Land Acquisition Officer for compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. mt., however, by his award dated 11th July, 2006, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 8.85 ps. per sq. mt. The petitioner, therefore, made an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the District Court, for enhancement of the compensation amount. The Reference was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. l075 of 2004 in the District Court, Mehsana. During pendency of the reference, the petitioner submitted an application Exh.12 on 19th December, 2008 praying for permission to amend the claim before the Reference Court, for the purpose of enhancing the claim from Rs. 200/- per sq, mt. to Rs. 500/- per sq. mt. By the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2009, the Reference Court rejected the application after recording findings on merits of the award and the sale instance sought to be relied upon by the petitioner for the purpose of seeking permission to enhance the claim from Rs. 200/- per sq. mt. to Rs. 500/- per sq. mt. 4. Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the petitioner Has made a serious grievance that the Reference Court decided the merits of the matter at the stage of considering the amendment application. It is also submitted that the power to grant amendment conferred by Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC would also include the power to amend the claim in a Reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is also submitted that the power to grant amendment conferred by Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC would also include the power to amend the claim in a Reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is also vehemently submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by allowing the amendment, because if the claim is permitted to be enhanced, the petitioner will still have to lead evidence and prove his case for getting the compensation at a rate higher than Rs. 200/- per sq. mt, and the respondents will also get full opportunity to lead their evidence and otherwise also to argue that the documents being produced by the petitioner or the oral evidence which may be led by the petitioner does not have sufficient evidenciary value. 5. Having heard Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. U.A. Trivedi learned Addl. Government Pleader, we find considerable substance in the grievance made on behalf of the petitioner that at the stage of considering the amendment application, the Reference Court was not supposed to go into the merits of the proposed amendment. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. K.K. Modi & Ors., [ AIR 2006 SC 1647 2 (2006) 4 SCC 385 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court, has in terms held as under:— “20. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case.” It is, unfortunate, that the Reference Court has not followed the cardinal principle and proceeded to decide the matter on merits by considering the evidentary value of the award and the sale instance sought to be relied upon by the petitioner through the proposed amendment. 6. As regards the power of Reference Court to entertain an application for amendment of the claim, our attention has been invited by Mr. 6. As regards the power of Reference Court to entertain an application for amendment of the claim, our attention has been invited by Mr. Prajapati to the decisions of the Apex-Court in Harcharan vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 43 and in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Anoop Singh & Another, AIR 2003 SC 1004 . 7. In Harcharan vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 43 the Apex Court, held that, even the appellate Court could grant, an application for amendment of memo of appeal seeking higher compensation in a land acquisition case. In that case, such application for amendment was rejected by the High Court on the sole ground that it was submitted after 6 years of filing of the appeal. The Apex Court held that, under Order VI Rule 17, the Court may allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of proceedings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The Apex Court further noted that, the appellant had sought amendment relying upon the decisions of the High Court itself and the decisions provided a comparable yardstick for effectively disposing of the real controversy before the High Court and the amendment was sought before the High Court proceeded to dispose of the appeal. The Apex Court, accordingly, granted the amendment application and remitted the matter to the High Court for deciding the appeal on merits. 8. Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned Addl. The Apex Court, accordingly, granted the amendment application and remitted the matter to the High Court for deciding the appeal on merits. 8. Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned Addl. Government Pleader submitted that when the aforesaid decision was rendered by the Apex Court, Section 25 of the Act read as under:— “When the applicant has made a claim, to compensation pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount, awarded by the Collector under S.11.” (emphasis supplied) By Act 68 of 1984, Section 25 was substituted by new Section 25, which reads as under:— “S. 25 Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.—The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.” Deletion of the words “exceed the amount so claimed or” by the present Section 25 indicates that prior to the amendment, the Legislative intent was that the Reference Court was not empowered to award any amount in excess of the amount claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer. The said legal position emerges from the decision of the Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority AIR 2003 SC 1004 . 9. However, we do not have to deal with the said submission for the simple reason that in the instant case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, the claim was made before the Land Acquisition Officer in response to the notice under Section 9 of the Act and all other events have taken place after coming into force of the Act No.-68 of 1984 (24th September, 1984). 10. Pertinent observations on the question of power of Reference Court to allow the amendment of the claim now available from 24th September, 1984 onwards are to be found in Ghaziabad Development Authority case ( AIR 2003 SC 1004 ) itself. In Paragraph 7, the Apex Court in terms held as under:— “It is to be noted that by virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court unless they are inconsistent with anything contained in the Act.. In Paragraph 7, the Apex Court in terms held as under:— “It is to be noted that by virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court unless they are inconsistent with anything contained in the Act.. In the light of this provision, the High Court, rightly held that there is no bar under the Land Acquisition Act to file a petition for amendment of the claim application in regard to the quantum of compensation claimed as there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act which is inconsistent with the power to allow amendment.” (emphasis supplied) 11. AS regards the petitioner’s contention that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by allowing the amendment, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that in case the Reference Court awards compensation at a rate higher than Rs. 200/- per sq. mt., even after the petitioner having claimed compensation for all these years at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. mt. before the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court, granting the amendment would expose the Government, to the liability to pay interest on the entire compensation amount even for the period during which the petitioner’s claim was restricted to Rs. 200/- per sq. mt. The submission is not without merit. While granting the amendment, therefore it would not be unreasonable to impose a condition that in case the Reference Court, awards compensation at a rate higher than Rs. 200/- per sq. mt. under Section 23(1) of the Act, the petitioner shall not be awarded interest on the amount of compensation in excess of Rs. 200/- per sq.mt. for the period prior to the date of making the amendment application and also on the proportionate amounts under Sub-sections (1 A) and (2) of Section 23 of the Act for the period prior to the date of making the amendment application. 12. In view of the above discussion, we allow this petition and set aside the order dated 3rd March, 2009 of the Reference Court and also grant application Exh.12 for amendment of the claim in Land Acquisition Reference No.1075 of 2004. 12. In view of the above discussion, we allow this petition and set aside the order dated 3rd March, 2009 of the Reference Court and also grant application Exh.12 for amendment of the claim in Land Acquisition Reference No.1075 of 2004. The amendment shall be carried out within two weeks from getting a certified copy of this order and thereafter the Reference Court shall proceed to hear and decide the Reference on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. We also direct that in case the Reference Court awards compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act at a rate higher than Rs. 200/- per sq.mt., the petitioner shall not be awarded interest on the amount of compensation under Section 23(1) in excess of Rs. 200/- per sq. mt. and on the amount of solatium under Section 23(2) and additional amount under Section 23(1A) proportionate to such excess compensation for the period prior to the date of amendment application Exh.12. It is clarified that we have not gone into the merits or the award or the sale instances relied upon by the petitioner and the Reference Court shall consider the matter on merits in accordance with law, after giving the parties opportunity of leading evidence. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. P P P P P