The judgment establishes that the power of review can only be exercised if expressly provided for in the statute, and that the Act of 2013 only allows for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the compensation award.

ORDER : – The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 27-9-2017 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are owners of certain land which was acquired under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2013”) for the purpose of construction of canal. The notification under section 11 and 19 of the Act of 2013 was issued on 20-8-2015 and 25-1-2016 respectively. The award was passed on 4-7-2016 (Annexure P/1), whereby, compensation was awarded to the petitioners and other land owners on account of acquisition of lands owned by them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the beneficiary of the award, namely, Shivnarayan had made an application to the same authority seeking disbursement of the amount of compensation to him. Thereupon, Case No. 23/B 121/2016-2017 (Annexure P/3) dated 17-11-2016 was registered and vide impugned order dated 27-9-2017 (Annexure P/6), the earlier entitlement of the parties of their share as per original award dated 4-7-2016 (Annexure P/1) was modified and the quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioners has been reduced to the extent of two-third of the amount and direction has been issued to disburse the balance one-third amount in favour of respondents No.3 and 4. He further submits that once the award was passed on 4-7-2016, the Land Acquisition Officer becomes funtus officio and he cannot modify the original award so as to incorporate certain new conditions. More so, such an order is in ignorance of the fact that a Writ Petition No. 167724/2016 is already pending before this court wherein the ownership of respondents No. 3 and 4 is under dispute and the question of title of the parties is also pending before the Civil Court at Bhopal. He further contends that any party aggrieved with the award dated 4-7-2016 could have taken recourse to section 64 of the Act of 2013, however, the same authority cannot exercise any power which has the effect of modifying the original award.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 opposed the petition and submit that the Land Acquisition Officer has not committed any mistake while taking into consideration the application filed by Shivnarayan. He submits that the impugned order dated 27-9-2017 is not review of the original award and the same has been passed in separate proceedings distributing the share of compensation to the parties in accordance with law, therefore, no interference is called for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the provisions of the Act of 2013.

6. A perusal of the original award dated 4-7-2016 (Annexure P/1) shows that the same has been passed in exercise of the power vested under section 31 of the Act of 2013 and the impugned order dated 27-9-2017 has an effect of modifying the original award dated 4-7-2016.

7. For proper appreciation of the submissions made by the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce section 33 and 64 of the Act of 2013. The same reproduced as under : –

“33. Corrections to awards by Collector. – (1) The Collector may at any time, but not later than six months from the date of award or where he has been required under the provisions of this Act to make a reference to the Authority under section 64, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in either of the awards or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or 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 representation in the matter. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of