Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.2.2015 in W.P.(C) No.10137 of 2014. The petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking for the following reliefs :-

"(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing the respondents to pass an award in the name of the petitioner if the petitioner's property is to be acquired by the respondents;

(b) Declare that the acquisition of the petitioner's property viz. 0.0030 hectares in Sy.No.60/2-8 of Block No.30 of Ettumanoor Village is bad and is not binding on the petitioner.

3. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were initiated by publication of notification under Sec.4 of the Act dated 28.11.2004. The declaration was also issued under Sec.6 of the Act. Notice under Sec.9 of the Act was issued and proceedings for award was also initiated and it is stated that the award was passed on 5.4.2008 in the name of the earlier owner of the property. Petitioner's case is that he had already purchased the property by Sale deeds dated 1.10.1973 and 2.7.1977. The petitioner, after came to know about the award in favour of the previous owner of the property, had filed an application on 14.7.2012 for award amount. The application was replied by letter of Tahsildar, Ext.P3, that the award amount was collected by Abdul Raheem and others and the petitioner's application cannot be considered. Subsequently, another letter was issued on 18.1.2013, Ext.P4, to the earlier owners, who have received the amount under the award with regard to petitioner's property asking them to deposit back the excess amount, failing which, recovery by way of revenue recovery proceedings shall be initiated. The award was subsequently rectified on 17.8.2012 and notice was issued to the petitioner to receive the amount. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the writ petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the award could not have been rectified after six months, which is provided under Sec.13A of the Act. He further submits that the award ought to have passed in the name of the petitioner, who was the real owner of the property. It is submitted that it was the obligatory duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to have examined the title of the land. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Vallikunnil Janaki Amma and Others v. Sree Amruthamangalam Kshethram Moorthi, Kozhikode and Another [2014 (1) KHC 57].

5. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the records.

6. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent. It was mentioned therein that after receipt of the application of the petitioner on 14.7.2012, the award was rectified on 17.8.2012.

7. The petitioner relied on Sec.13A of the Act, which is to the following effect :-

"13A. Correction 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 Sec.18 to make a reference to the court, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a local authority :

Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter.

(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in the award to all the persons interested.

(3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid to any person as a result of the correction made under sub-sec.(1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to be refunded and in the case of any default or refusal t