Order on Board

15-11-2021

1. It is submitted that the petitioners in both the cases are recorded owners of the land which was acquired by the respondents for construction of Kalma Barrage. The compensation has been determined by respondent No.4 and awards have been passed by order dated 02-06-2021 and by order dated 28- 01-2021. The petitioners in both the cases have grievance that in the passing the impugned awards respondent No.4 has committed mistake which is in the matter of error in calculation of compensation. Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act, 2013') empowers the respondent No.4 to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake. The petitioners filed representations praying to amend the award which are pending without any decision. In similar cases the Land Acquisition Officers of other districts have passed the amended award and granted relief to the persons affected. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the matter of Rajput Chhagguji Modiaji Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [in R/First Appeal No.2123 of 2018, decided on 13/08/2018] and also on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India Vs Om Prakash and others [ in CM(M) 1139/2016 & CM Nos.41958-41959/2016 and batch of other petitions, decided on 11-11-2016]. It is submitted that although the provision under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 provides for making reference to the Collector, but in the provision under Section 63 of the Act, 2013 it is clearly provided that in the matter of dispute relating to land acquisition the High Court shall have jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Therefore, present petitions have been preferred before this Court.

2. It is submitted that there is requirement of strict compliance of Section 31 of the Act, 2013 which has not been made by respondent No.4 in the impugned award. Hence, the petitions be dispose off with direction.

3. The State counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submission and submits that once the award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer a notice is given to the person interested and the award of compensation is uploaded in the website, the award becomes final. Therefore, that cannot be amended. It is submitted that the representations filed by the petitioners in both the cases are in fact for seeking recall of the earlier award granting compensation. Section 33 of the Act, 2013 can be invoked only for a limited purpose to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake. This provision does not empower review of the earlier order. It is submitted that in such a case the petitioner have remedy available to file application under Section 64(2) of the Act, 2013. It is further submitted that in the case of Rajput Chhagguji Modiaji Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) the High Court of Gujarat has referred to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act, 1894'), in which Section 13A is now Section 33 of the new Act and Section 18 of the Act, 1894 is now Section 64 of the Act, 2013 which provides for reference to Collector. The High Court of Gujarat has clearly expressed that Section 13A of the Act, 1894 provides only for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake and does not empower to modify the award.

Therefore, the petitions are not maintainable.

4. In reply it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that prayer of the petitioners is only for direction to the concerned to decide their representations which may be decided in accordance with law.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

6. Considered on the submissions. In the case of Union of India Vs. Om Prakash and others (supra), Delhi High Court has observed in paragraph 10 as follows:-

10. The other contention raised by the petition