Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI — RESPONDENT
Civil Appeal No. 6638 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 6637 of 2010
Decided on : 17-10-2019
(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 13A - Provides for correction of clerical or arithmetic mistakes, not review, that too within six months - Instantly Land Acquisition Officer reviewing his award after 9 months - Not permissible. (Para 9, 10)
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 12 - Award once passed and compensation paid becomes final - Instantly award passed and compensation also paid - Award became final and could not be reviewed. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Land of the appellants was sought to be acquired by a notification under Section 4 of the Act, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. An Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector awarding compensation of Rs. 1,97,08,397/- in favour of the appellants, out of which, an amount of Rs. 1,87,10,194/- was paid to the appellants and the balance amount of Rs. 9,98,203/-, along with interest, still remains to be paid.
Then a Review Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, reducing the amount of compensation by Rs. 49,39,195/- on the ground that the compensation ought not to have been awarded in respect of alleged illegal structures on the land, which had wrongly been awarded by the earlier Award. Such amount was thus deducted by the Review Award. The appellants were unaware of the said Review Award having been passed and, in the meantime, a Supplementary Award dated 27.10.2004 was passed in favour of the appellants for an amount of Rs. 45,36,781.64 paise towards compensation for the trees on the land which was acquired.
The appellants then filed Writ Petition (C) praying for release of the compensation in respect of the Supplementary Award. On having been informed of the passing of the Review Award, which information was furnished to the appellants in response to an RTI application, the appellants then filed Writ Petition (C) challenging the Review Award. Both the Writ Petitions were heard together and dismissed by a common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Award dated 01.10.2003 could not have been reviewed by the Collector.
Result: Appeal allowed.
There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to review an award once passed under Section 11. [judgement_subject] (!) [1000641440007] (!) [1000641440008][1000641440009][1000641440010] (!)
Section 13A permits only correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award, within six months from the date of the award, and only before reference under Section 18 if applicable. [judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000641440004][1000641440007][1000641440008][1000641440010]
An award under Section 11 becomes final upon being filed in the Collector's office and notice given to interested persons; partial payment of compensation further confirms finality under Section 12. [judgement_act_referred] (!) [1000641440004][1000641440010] (!)
Review award passed after nine months, reducing compensation for structures claimed as illegal, constitutes impermissible review, not mere clerical correction, as it requires evidence on legality. [1000641440001][1000641440002][1000641440009][1000641440011]
Power of review exists only if expressly provided by statute; absent such provision, review orders are without jurisdiction. [1000641440011] (!) (!) [1000641440012][1000641440013] (!)
In this case, original award dated 01.10.2003 (Rs. 1,97,08,397/-, partial payment made) attained finality; review award dated 14.07.2004 reducing it by Rs. 49,39,195/- quashed; appellants entitled to original award plus supplementary award for trees (Rs. 45,36,781.64). [1000641440001][1000641440002][1000641440003] (!)
JUDGMENT
Vineet Saran, J.
The short question involved in these appeals are, as to whether under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), after the passing of the Award under Section 11 of the Act, the Award could be reviewed under any of the provisions of the Act, specially under Section 13A of the Act.
2. Brief facts of this case, relevant for the purpose of the present appeals are, that land of the appellants was sought to be acquired by a notification dated 23.05.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 17.12.2002. An Award bearing no. 16/03-04 dated 01.10.2003 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector awarding compensation of Rs. 1,97,08,397/- in favour of the appellants, out of which, an amount of Rs. 1,87,10,194/- was paid to the appellants and the balance amount of Rs. 9,98,203/-, along with interest, still remains to be paid.
3. Then on 14.07.2004, a Review Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, reducing the amount of compensation by Rs. 49,39,195/- on the ground that the compensation ought not to have been awarded in respect of alleged illegal structures on the land, which had wrongly been awarded by the Award dated 01.10.2003. Such amount was thus deducted by the Review Award. The appellants were unaware of the said Review Award having been passed and, in the meantime, a Supplementary Award dated 27.10.2004 was passed in favour of the appellants for an amount of Rs. 45,36,781.64 paise towards compensation for the trees on the land which was acquired.
4. The appellants then filed Writ Petition (C) No. 2185 of 2008 praying for release of the compensation in respect of the Supplementary Award dated 27.10.2004. On having been informed of the passing of the Review Award No. 16/03-04 on 14.07.2004, which information was furnished to the appellants in response to an RTI application dated 18.12.2007, the appellants then filed Writ Petition (C) No. 381 of 2009 challenging the Review Award dated 14.07.2004. Both the Writ Petitions were heard together and dismissed by a common judgment dated 04.03.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is under challenge in the present appeals.
5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that after the Award had been passed on 01.10.2003 under Section 11 of the Act, the same had become final as per Section 12 of the Act, and the same could not have been reviewed under any provision of the Act. It has been contended that the only provision is for correction of clerical errors etc. under Section 13A of the Act, which only permits the Collector to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the Award, and that too within a period of six months and not beyond. It is thus contended that Award dated 01.10.2003 had attained finality, and could not have been reviewed under any of the provisions of the Act. It is lastly contended that the Supplementary Award dated 27.10.2004 was passed for compensation of the trees on the land of appellants, which amount ought to have been paid and the High Court has wrongly denied the same.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that a mistake committed by the Land Acquisition Collector, while passing the Award dated 01.10.2003, could be corrected at any time, and in the present case, the Award included the compensation for the illegal structure, which ought not to have been paid to the petitioner as the same would not be payable under the 8th Clause of Section 24 of the Act. It has been contended that a mistake which had occurred in the Award could be corrected by the Land Acquisition Collector at any time, and in the present case, the same was done on the instruction of the Secretary, Land and Building, which was duly approved by the Lieutenant Governor. Though it is submitted that notice of the proceedings in the Review Award was sent to the appellants, but the same is denied by the appellants, who have thus conten
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
