JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking for directions to pay proper compensation in terms of the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013).

3. The Petitioner’s agricultural land bearing Gut No.122, 123 and 127 of Village Ale, Taluka Junnar, Dist. Pune was acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (Act of 1956). The said acquisition was for the purpose of Road widening of the Pune -Nashik National Highway No.50. Preliminary notification under Section 3-A of the Act of 1956 was issued on 7th November, 2014 whilest declaration of acquisition under Section 3-D was dated 6th November, 2015. The amount of compensation was determined under Section 3-G of the Act on 3rd April, 2016. The determined amount was deposited. The Petitioner’s uncle had raised dispute about apportionment of the compensation amount, on which the competent authority has passed conditional order of reference to the Civil Court in terms of Section 3 H(4) of the Act of 1956.

4. The Petitioner raised grievance about determination of inadequate compensation on account of well, fruit bearing tress, pipeline, bore well etc. On that basis, authorities have passed supplementary award dated 31st May, 2018 by which amount of compensation has been enhanced to some extent.

5. It is the Petitioner’s grievance that, the authorities have not considered all fruit bearing trees while computing compensation. Moreover, well and drip irrigation was not considered though award was revised. The learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner would submit that, in view of the decision of this Court in case of Yasminbegum and Others v/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 SCC Online Bom. 4037 there is no provision to correct/revise the award. According to him, the subsequent measurement report demonstrates the existence of well, pipelines and additional trees, but it has not been considered in either of the award. He would submit that unless these items are incorporated in the award he cannot seek compensation on said ground before the competent forum provided under Section 3-G(5) of the Act of 1956.

6. In resistance to the Petition, Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed by the Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer No.13, Dist.Pune. Procedural narration of facts has not been disputed. It is contended that adequate compensation has been awarded by applying the principles laid down under Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013. The copy of original award dated 6th April, 2016 has been placed on record. The said award was preceeded by joint measurement carried in terms of Section 3-B of the Act of 1956. It is contended that while passing initial award, valuation report of all the fruit bearing trees, other trees, pipeline and bore-well was not available, which was received on 27th July, 2019. In view of valuation report, supplementary Award dated 31st May, 2018 was passed of which copy is made available.

7. Respondents contended that despite grant of adequate compensation, Petitioner had filed various complaints. Re-verification was done at said instance. Taluka Agricultural Officer has endorsed the correctness of supplementary award. In short, it is Respondents’ stand that by way of supplementary award, adequate compensation has been granted calling no indulgence in writ jurisdiction.

8. The record indicates that, after initial award, on the basis of valuation report, supplementary award enhancing the amount of compensation has been passed. Though second or corrected award is not permissible, it is not at the detriment of the Petitioner. The Respondents contended that possession of acquired land has been taken on 9th August, 2016 which is not disputed by Petitioner. I