Advocates:
['ANURAG SHUKLA', '', 'JEETENDRA SINGH', 'RAVI SHANKAR PRASADSenior Adv', 'A S G I', '', 'C S C', 'PRANJAL MEHROTRA', 'ASHISH TRIPATHI']

Court No. - 39

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13902 of 2021

Petitioner :- Smt. Ketaki Devi And Another

Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla,Jeetendra Singh,Ravi Shankar

Prasad(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashish Tripathi,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jeetendra

Singh learned counsel for the petitioners in all the connected petitions, Sri

Pranjal Mehrotra learned counsel appears for the National Highway Authority of

India and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

The challenge to the award dated 15.05.2018 and the notice dated 16.08.2018

issued by the respondent No.3 namely the competent authority (National

Highway Authority of India/ Land Acquisition Officer) District, Kaushambi,

U.P. is on the ground that the award passed under Section 3-G(1) of the National

Highways Act' 1956 could not be revised or reviewed by the competent

authority.

It is argued that on the similar sets of facts and issue, the revised award was

passed by the competent authority with respect to another village, subject matter

of acquisition in the same notification as that of the petitioners land, the Division

Bench of this Court in the judgement and order dated 26.02.2020 in Writ

Petition No.22248 of 2019 (Sita Ram & others Vs. Union of India & others)

has held the revised award passed by the competent authority being without

jurisdiction and hence quashed it. It was observed by the Division Bench therein

that the competent authority had no jurisdiction to revise the rates of

compensation and pass a fresh award in the garb of making clerical and

arithmetical correction in the original award. However, liberty was granted to

the National Highway Authority to pursue the remedy available to it under

Section 3-G(5) of the Act' 1956.

Sri Pranjal Mehrotra learned counsel for the respondent authority submits that

the authority has already challenged the original awards by approaching the

Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the Act' 1956 and in some of the connected

writ petition, the original awards have also been quashed by the Arbitrator

whereas with regard to other villages, the matter is pending before the Arbitrator.

The stand of the State-respondent is that the competent authority namely the

respondent No.3 has not reviewed the original award dated 20.10.2017 rather on

seeing the gross error apparent on the record in calculation of the amount of

compensation, in exercise of the inherent power to rectify/amend the error, fresh

award was passed on 15.05.2018.

Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Naresh Kumar @

others Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi reported in 2019 (9) SCC 416. The

paragraph Nos.9 & 12 are quoted as under:-

“9. In our considered view, the Review Award could not have been passed

under Section 13A of the Act, which is meant only for correction of any clerical

or arithmetical mistake. There is no other provision in the Act under which the

said order dated 14.07.2004 could have been passed.

12. It is settled law that the power of Review can be exercised only when the

statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the

concerned statute, such power of Review cannot be exercised by the authority

concerned. This Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant

Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437, has held as under:"……………

12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the

review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasijudicial orders.

In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of

review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in

review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel

Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jam