ORDER

Shukla, J. -- 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside of the award dated 1.6.2020 and for restoration of the original award dated 7.3.2019.

2. The facts of the case are that the industrial lands belonging to the petitioners and the industrial unit appurtenant thereto have been acquired by the respondents and an award granting compensation was passed on 7.3.2019. It is submitted that the compensation for the land has been assessed @ Rs.2700/- per square meter. This rate was based on relevant market value guidelines. After more than one year from the date of passing of the award, the respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioners on 18.3.2020. By the said notice, three days time was granted to the petitioners to submit their reply with regard to review of the award. The petitioners filed a detailed reply inter alia pointing out that there is no error in the award and that the respondent No.2 has become functus officio and thus he has no jurisdiction to review the award that too after lapse of more than a year. The respondent No.2 has reviewed the award and passed the impugned award and reduced the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners by applying rate on the basis of measurement of lands acquired as per hectare basis, whereas initially the compensation was computed at per square meter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly the lands of the petitioners are industrial and thus in the original award compensation was rightly computed on the basis of per square meter. It is submitted that the impugned award passed in exercise of the review jurisdiction is without jurisdiction. In absence of the statutory power of review, the respondent No.2 could not have reviewed the award. The correction which has been sought by the respondent No.2 would not fall within the ambit of correction of clerical error under section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act,2013). It is submitted that the aforesaid provision permits correction of award of clerical error within a period of six months and not beyond that. The sole question which crops up for consideration is as follows :-

“Whether the SDO cum Land Acquisition Officer cum Competent Authority ( who after passing of award becomes functus officio) can review the award passed by it in absence of statutory powers of review under the National Highways Act, 1956 that too after a lapse of more than one year.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited a Division Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Bhupendra Singh v. Competent Authority, 2019 SCC On line Bom 6092, Single Bench judgment of High Court of Calcutta in WPA 142 of 2019, 2019 SCC Online Cal 6122 (Md. Asaduzzaman and another v. State of West Bengal and others and also a Single Bench decision of High Court of Chattishgarh at Bilaspur passed in Writ Petition (C) No.665/2019 (Mahesh Nachrani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) and connected writ petitions on 14.9.2020 to argue that once the competent authority has passed the award as to the quantum of compensation payable in lieu of acquisition of the land under the National Highways Act, he cannot review the order, therefore, the amended award dated 1.6.2020 is wholly illegal and incompetent.

5. The respondents filed reply and raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy as provided under section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Act, 2013. It is submitted that without availing the said alternative remedy, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the impugned award do not fall within the purview of review, it is only a correction which is done by the answering respondent