The court clarified the limitations of the Land Acquisition Officer's power to pass a second award under Section 12-A of the Land Acquisition Act and emphasized that fraud committed by certain officials did not implicate the landowners.

CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are the residents of Chikkanahalli Village, Hollekote hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District. Consequent on the construction of the Hemavathi left Bank Canal, the vacant sites and houses of the petitioners were affected by the seepage water. In respect of this the Land Acquisition Officer, after notice to the petitioners on their claim application, passed an award dated 25. 8. 2002. This award was approved by the Deputy commissioner on 7. 11. 2002. Thereafter, since the State Government has not paid the compensation, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions seeking for a direction to pay compensation as per the award.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of these Writ Petitions the Land Acquisition Officer passed a second award dated 6. 6. 2003 at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan. The petitioners made application before the Court seeking for amendment of the prayer in these Writ Petitions to quash the second award also. The said application was allowed and an order was passed on 23-10-2003 quashing the second award dated 6-6-2003 and directing the respondents to release the amount of compensation to the petitioners.

2a. Aggrieved by the said award the respondent State preferred W. A. 635-55/2003 before the division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeals and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The ground on which the Division Bench appears to have allowed the writ appeals is; that Section 12-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'act') has not been noticed by the Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petitions. Even assuming that Section 12-A of the Act has not been noticed, the Division Bench itself could have considered the case with reference to Section 12-A of the Act instead of remitting the matter. But, since the Division Bench has remitted the matter for fresh consideration these Writ Petitions are heard afresh.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the second award passed by the Land acquisition Officer is virtually a fresh award in place of the first award and therefore, it is without jurisdiction. The Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that if there is any bonafide mistake in the award, it is open for the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a second award by virtue of the power conferred on him under Section 12-A of the Act as amended by the State Act. Section 12-A of the Act reads as follows : "any clerical or arithmetical mistake in an award or errors arising therein from accidental slips or omission may, at any time not later than six months from the date of the award, be corrected by the Deputy Commissioner either on his motion or on the application of the person interested and the award so corrected shall be deemed to have been corrected accordingly"

. From the facts in this case it is seen that the first award is dated 25-8-2002 and approved on 7-11-2002. The second award is dated 6-6-2003. If that is so, the second award passed by the land Acquisition Officer is beyond six months from the date of the first award. Further, the power conferred on the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 12-A of the Act is to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in an award or the error arising therein from accidental slips or omission. In the instant case, the second award is virtually an award in place of the first award. The Land Acquisition Officer has not pointed out any clerical or arithmetical mistake or, errors arising therein from accidental slips or omission so as to replace the first award by passing the second award. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Advocate General that the Land acquisition Officer has power to pass a second award and the said power is traceable to Section 12-A of the Act is Liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate General further submits that even assuming th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document