JUDGMENT :

S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for respective parties, matters are taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioners challenge the second award passed by respondent no. 3/competent authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition.

3. All these writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law. To avoid rigmarole are decided by the common judgment.

4. In all these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the second award passed by the competent authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition. For the sake of convenience the facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 1883 of 2018.

5. Initially, the first award was passed U/Sec. 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956 on or about 05.07.2017 and subsequently, the second award modifying/substituting the first award is passed on 01.08.2017.

6. Mr. Sapkal, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that respondent no. 3/competent authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition has no jurisdiction and authority to pass subsequent award by modifying the first award. The provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 do not permit the competent authority to pass subsequent award after the first award is passed. First award is passed U/Sec. 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the same is approved by the respondents. Subsequently, the competent authority does not have the jurisdiction to pass the subsequent award reducing the compensation amount. Initially, as per the first award the compensation was granted at Rs. 600/- per Sq. Mtrs. The same is reduced to Rs. 47.20 per Sq. Mtrs. The learned counsel further submits that reference to Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to Act-2013) cannot be resorted to by the respondents. The provisions of Section 33 of the Act-2013 are inapplicable. The provisions relating to the determination of compensation under the Act-2013 are only made applicable to the acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956.

7. The learned counsel on factual matrix submits that to others the compensation has been granted at Rs. 600 per Sq. Mtrs. and it is only in respect of the petitioners the compensation has been reduced, though the acquisition is for the same project and same purpose and the lands are also situated adjacent to each other.

8. Mr. Deshpande, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no. 3 submits that the second award was passed U/Sec. 33 of the Act-2013. The lands acquired are not adjacent to the National Highway. The acquired lands are acquired first time for bypass National Highway. The rates of such lands which are acquired first time for National Highway bypass are different and cannot be similarly recommended. The preliminary award dated 05.07.2017 was passed. The mistake was committed in valuing the present writ lands. These lands are not adjacent to the Highways or near the highways. After realising this mistake and error, it was necessary to revise the proposal and accordingly the proposal is revised as per the available record. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation determined by respondent no. 3, then the petitioners have an alternate remedy U/Sec. 3, 7(g)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 by approaching the Arbitrator.

9. The learned Assistant Solicitor General further submits that as there was an error and miscalculation, therefore revised award was again submitted for sanction and approval. The explanation and reasons were given for revision of the award giving the details how the rates and valuation are changed.

10. The learned Assistant Solicitor General further submits that it is a matter of a public exchequer. In view of that, this Court may not entertain the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. The learned Assistant Solicitor