Petitioner seeks invalidation of the order of August 2001 passed by the third respondent whereby and whereunder in purported exercise of power under Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), he deducted money awarded for well and pipeline separately from total compensation, which was awarded earlier.

2. Petitioner is owner of land admeasuring about Ac.0.17 1/2 in Survey No.764/3 and Ac.0.05 in Survey No.764/15 situated at Vadderapalle Village of Puthalapattu Mandal in Chittoor District. The said land and other lands of the village were acquired for public purpose, namely, construction of barrage across Ponnai River near Kalvakunta Village. Third respondent passed Award No.8/200l-2002, dated 7.7.2001, awarding a sum of Rs.1,52,778/- which includes land value and value for structures/well. The details - as tabulated in Land Acquisition Officer's award; are as follows:

Survey No. Extent acquired Land value Structures Well Tree 30% of solatium Total

764/3 0.15 1/2 7,750 - 1,39,453 - 2,325 1,49,528

0.02

764/1 0.05 2,500 - - 750 3,250 Total 0.20 1/2 10,250 - 1,39,453 - 3,075 1,52,778

0.02

3. A month thereafter, third respondent passed impugned order having regard to a circular issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in CCLA Ref.No.G1/1161/99, dated 16.7.1999. It was clarified there in that when market value of the land is determined and compensation awarded, separate amounts for well need not be awarded. Petitioner mainly contends that third respondent has no such power to review the award and that Section 13A of the Act does not permit revision of award.

4. Third respondent filed counter-affidavit justifying impugned order. It is the case in the counter that according to circular issued by Chief Commissioner, Irrigation Wells in agricultural lands cannot have separate value as held by this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. J. Shadraik, 1996 (3) ALD 774 = 1996 (3) ALT 1102 (DB). Out of total sum of Rs.l,52,778/- awarded to petitioner, a sum of Rs.1,39,450/ - was awarded towards cost of well, and therefore, impugned order was passed.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the award of money for the wells/pipelines by third respondent does not amount to clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award and that third respondent cannot exercise power under Section 13A of the Act. He nextly contends that Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) does not have power to review the award, and therefore, impugned order is without power or jurisdiction. He placed reliance on the decisions in Bihar Finance Service H. C. Co-op Soc. Ltd. v Gautam Goswami, AIR 2008 SC 1975, Chandra Gupta v. Spl. L.A. Officer, 2001 (Supp) All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 307, Dhanraj v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1995 Raj 66 and Kuruvilla Thomas v. State Bank of Travancore, AIR 1989 Ker 68. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in Nakkana Pentaiah v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), WP No.20853 of 1994, dated 20.6.1999. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (L.A.) relies on Abdul Sattar v. District Collector, Nizamabad, 1999 (5) ALD 82 = 1999 (3) ALT 227 and submits that grant of separate compensation for the wells is not permitted under law, and therefore, the case fa11s under Section 13A of the Act, under which LAO can rectify arithmetical or clerical mistakes.

Section 13A of the Act reads as under:

13A. Carrection of clerical errors, etc.-(1) The Collector may, at any time but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under Section 18 to make a reference to the Court, before the making of such reference, by order, correct a