The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Land Acquisition Officer's authority is limited to making corrections of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award, and they cannot modify the award or award additional compensation without proper application of mind and criteria.

Ashok Parihar, J.-Land measuring 37 bigha 16 biswa was sought to be acquired for construction of college building at Alwar vide Notification dated 12.1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The possession of the land sought to be acquired had also been taken on 09.04.1979. Before a final award could be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, a writ petition was preferred by the contesting respondents before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings in regard to their land measuring 8 bigha 13 biswa in khasra Nos. 840, 841, 844, 845 and 848. Initially, an interim order was passed by this Court on 11.09.1979 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 776/1979, however, the interim order was subsequently vacated by this Court on 13.08.1981. In the meanwhile, the Land Acquisition Officer had already passed an award on 110.1979 so far as remaining land so acquired. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the Land Acquisition Officer kept the proceedings in abeyance so far as land in question as mentioned in the award dated 110.1979 itself . Subsequently, a second stay application was also filed by the contesting respondents with the prayer that they may not be dispossessed from the land in question. However, the second stay application was dismissed by this Court on 111.1986 on the ground that possession had already been taken long back as referred to above and the writ petition also came to be dismissed ultimately vide order dated 20.02.1990. After interim order been vacated by this Court, the compensation in regard to land possessed by the contesting respondents was also determined by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 28.08.1986. After passing of the above order dated 28.08.1986 contesting respondents also filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference before the District Collector.

2. The matter would not have come to an end here. After filing of the application under Section 18 of the Act for reference the contesting respondents also submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Officer on 23.03.1987 for awarding additional compensation including enhanced solatium as per the amended provisions of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an order dated 07.08.1991 awarding additional compensation as prayed by the contesting respondents. Again, an application was filed by the contesting respondents before the Land Acquisition Officer on 010.1997 which was also allowed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 02.08.1999 further enhancing the amount of compensation originally awarded to the contesting respondents. Hence the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 07.08.1991 as also 02.08.1999 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

3. Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that once an award been passed, the Land Acquisition Officer could not have modified the same subsequently, more so, when an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act had already been preferred by the contesting respondents. He has further submitted that compensation could be awarded only as per provisions of Section 23 of the Act.

4. Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submitted that since the award in the present case had been passed on 28.08.1986 the compensation can only be awarded as per the amended provisions of the Act and the Land Acquisition Officer could always rectify the award originally passed.

5. After having considered submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record, the orders passed by the authorities below, provisions for the Act and the Judgment s cited at the Bar.

6. There cannot be any dispute that Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 12.1978 and the possession had also been taken on 09.04.1979. Total land, sought to be