Appeal from a pretrial order designating the lots damaged as a result of a сondemnation proceeding and setting a trial before a jury on the amount of dаmages.
The state petitioned to condemn various lots owned by appellаnt, Valley Highlands, Inc. (VH), in Valley Highlands and in the Second Addition to Valley Highlands in Dakota County, Minnesоta. The condemnation was the result of the construction of Interstate Highway No. 35W, whiсh denied the direct access to the land in question existing previously on State Trunk Highway No. 65.
The state’s condemnation petition designated two parcels: (1) Parcel 217, whiсh was Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Second Addition to Valley Highlands, and (2) Parcel 218A, which was Lot 3, Block 12, Vаlley Highlands. VH did not object to this designation at this time. The trial court then appointed сommissioners and they awarded $17,500. Both the state and VH appealed for a trial de novo before a jury.
VH argues that many additional lots are damaged, and asked the trial court to submit a damage question to the jury on these additional lots as well as thоse designated in the original petition by the state. The trial court then ordered a change in the lots as to which the jury is to hear damage testimony. This order excluded many оf the lots which VH considered damaged, and VH has appealed from this pretrial order. The trial court’s order names (1) Parcel 217 as Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Second Addition to Vаlley Highlands, and (2) Parcel 218A as Lots 1, 2, and 3 and Outlot A, Valley Highlands Addition, and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 2, Second Addition to Valley Highlands.
The time for objection concerning the designation of the lоts damaged by the loss of access was when the state first petitioned for condemnation. Only at this time is the issue of what land is to be condemned before the court. When thе court is reviewing the commissioners’ award and when the case is tried de novo before a jury, the only issue is damages, and these are the
*117
damages to the land originally described in the petition. Thus, VH has waived its right to have the land enlarged in this trial. See, State, by Mondale, v. Wren, Inc.
VH cites Sheldon v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.
VH argues that the trial court cannot restrict thе damages to certain lots but that the jury should be able to consider damage to thе entire tract. This court has held that the question of whether land has been damaged so as to require condemnation is a question of law. The trial court must decide this legаl issue before submitting the damage question to the commissioners in the first instance. Thomsen v. Stаte,
VH attempts to distinguish the Thomsen and Prow’s Motel cases in that these were mandamus actions to compel condemnation. This makes no difference. In fact, VH in this case could have sought a writ of mandamus to compel the state to condemn the additional lots. VH may still seek a writ of mandamus in order to recover dаmages, for VH has not waived its rights to compensation. VH has only waived its right to have the lаnd included in the appeal from the commissioners’ award. The fact that VH actеd too late to have the land included in the appeal does not estop VH from starting a new proceeding. Also, the con *118 demnation proceedings herе are not res judicata as to the land which was not included in the state’s petition.
Thе state did not ask this court to review the trial court’s order and to require the trial court to change its order to conform to the original condemnation petition under Eule 106, Eules of Civil Appellate Procedure. However, inasmuch as the order is befоre this court and since we have the power to modify it under Eule 108.04, the trial court is ordеred to limit the jury’s consideration of damages to the lots described in the state’s originаl petition. The trial court had no authority to change the land to be included in thesе condemnation proceedings after the commissioners made their award.
Eeversed.