ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed with a prayer seeking for quashing of the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, i. e. Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition OfÏcer (Narmada Project), whereby the prayer made by the petitioners for correction of the award dated 07.03.2022 has been rejected. It may be noted that the petitioners claim to be the owners and occupants of the land in question bearing survey No.238 (old survey No.324 p1), Village Vani, Taluka Viramgam, District Ahmedabad. It is an admitted fact of the matter that on the date of acquisition of the land in question, the name of other persons, apart from the petitioners herein, had been recorded in the revenue record in Village Form No.7/12. The assertions made in the writ petition are that the aunt of the petitioners, whose name is shown in the award as a beneficiary, had passed away on 01.02.1989 and all disputes pertaining to the right of the heirs of the aunt of the petitioners had been settled prior to making of the award. The contention is that since the award is made in the name of a dead person, her name was required to be deleted. Th submission, thus, is that the Special land Acquisition OfÏcer has erred in rejecting the application under Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for correction in the award passed on 07.03.2022.

3. All these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking to challenge the order impugned are found to be misconceived for the simple reason that Section 33 of the Act confers powers on the Collector to make correction in the award, which are in the nature of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or any error arising therein, either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or local authority, after giving the reasonable opportunity of making representation to the person prejudicially affected. In the present petition, the petitioners have not impleaded any of the heirs of deceased Laxmiben Pachanbhai, the aunt of the petitioners, whose name was recorded at the time of acquisition. Moreover, the power of the Collector is to make correction of clerical/arithmetical mistakes and there is no power to delete the name of co-owner, whose name was entered in the revenue record. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that with the death of the co-owner, her name could not have been entered in the award, is found misconceived, in as much as, there cannot be any extension of right in the land in question by the death of a person. The heirs of the person concerned are not on record. The present petition is accordingly, dismissed.

4. However, the liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise a dispute with respect to the persons entitled to disbursement of compensation by moving an appropriate application before the competent authority. The dismissal of the present petition will not come in the way of the petitioners in any of such proceedings.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

cmk