NARESH KUMAR & ORS. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI on 17 October 2019

1. The short question involved in these appeals are, as to whetherunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), after thepassing of the Award under Section 11 of the Act, the Award could bereviewed under any of the provisions of the Act, specially under Section13A of the Act.

2. Brief facts of this case, relevant for the purpose of the presentappeals are, that land of the appellants was sought to be acquired by anotification dated 23.05.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act, followedby a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 17.12.2002. AnAward bearing no.16/03-04 dated 01.10.2003 was passed by the LandAcquisition Collector awarding compensation of Rs.1,97,08,397/- in favourof the appellants, out of which, an amount of Rs.1,87,10,194/- was paidto the appellants and the balance amount of Rs.9,98,203/-, along withinterest, still remains to be paid.

3. Then on 14.07.2004, a Review Award was passed by the LandAcquisition Collector, reducing the amount of compensation byRs.49,39,195/- on the ground that the compensation ought not to havebeen awarded in respect of alleged illegal structures on the land, whichhad wrongly been awarded by the Award dated 01.10.2003. Such amountwas thus deducted by the Review Award. The appellants were unawareof the said Review Award having been passed and, in the meantime, a A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASupplementary Award dated 27.10.2004 was passed in favour of theappellants for an amount of Rs.45,36,781.64 paise towards compensationfor the trees on the land which was acquired.

4. The appellants then filed Writ Petition (C) No.2185 of 2008praying for release of the compensation in respect of the SupplementaryBAward dated 27.10.2004. On having been informed of the passing ofthe Review Award No.16/03-04 on 14.07.2004, which information wasfurnished to the appellants in response to an RTI application dated18.12.2007, the appellants then filed Writ Petition (C) No.381 of 2009challenging the Review Award dated 14.07.2004. Both the Writ Petitionswere heard together and dismissed by a common judgment datedC04.03.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, whichis under challenge in the present appeals.

5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is thatafter the Award had been passed on 01.10.2003 under Section 11 of theAct, the same had become final as per Section 12 of the Act, and theDsame could not have been reviewed under any provision of the Act. Ithas been contended that the only provision is for correction of clericalerrors etc. under Section 13A of the Act, which only permits the Collectorto correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the Award, and that toowithin a period of six months and not beyond. It is thus contended thatEAward dated 01.10.2003 had attained finality, and could not have beenreviewed under any of the provisions of the Act. It is lastly contendedthat the Supplementary Award dated 27.10.2004 was passed forcompensation of the trees on the land of appellants, which amount oughtto have been paid and the High Court has wrongly denied the same.

F6.Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted thata mistake committed by the Land Acquisition Collector, while passingthe Award dated 01.10.2003, could be corrected at any time, and in thepresent case, the Award included the compensation for the illegalstructure, which ought not to have been paid to the petitioner as thesame would not be payable under the 8[th] Clause of Section 24 of theGAct. It has been contended that a mistake which had occurred in theAward could be corrected by the Land Acquisition Collector at any time,and in the present case, the same was done on the instruction of theSecretary, Land and Building, which was duly approved by the Lieutenant Governor. Though it is submitted that notice of the proceedings in theReview Award was sent to the appellants, but the same is denied by theappellants, who have thus contended that they had no knowledge of theproceedings of the Review Award.

7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length andhave perused the material on record.

8. There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forreview of the Award once passed under Section 11 of the Act and hadattained finality. The only provision is for correction of clerical errors inthe Award which is provided for under Section 13A of the Act, whichwas inserted with effect from 24.09.1984. The relevant Section 13A ofthe Act reads as under:

13A. Correction of clerical errors, etc. – (1) The Collectormay, at any time but not later than six months from the date ofthe award, or where he has been required under section 18 tomake a reference to the Court, before the making of suchreference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmeticalmistakes in the award or errors arising therein either on hisown motion or on the application of any person interested ora local authority:

Provided that no correction which is likely to affectprejudicially any person shall be made unless such personhas been given a reasonable opportunity of making arepresentation in the matter.

(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correctionmade in the award to all the persons interested.

(3) Where any excess amount is proved to have been paid toany person as a result of the correction made under sub-section (1), the excess amount so paid shall be liable to berefunded and in the case of any default or refusal to pay, thesame may be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.

(emphasis supplied)

A bare reading of the said Section 13A would make it clear thatthe same is not a provision for Review of the Award but only for correction A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the Award. It is further providedin the sub-Section (1) of Section 13A that the said correction can bemade at any time, but not later than six months from the date of award.In the present case, the Land Acquisition Collector has actually not madeany correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake, but has in fact reviewedthe Award dated 01.10.2003 by its Review Award no.16/03-04 datedB14.07.2004, which was also clearly passed beyond such period of sixmonths.

9. In our considered view, the Review Award could not have beenpassed under Section 13A of the Act, which is meant only for correctionof any clerical or arithmetical mistake. There is no other provision in theCAct under which the said order dated 14.07.2004 could have been passed.

10. In the present case, the compensation for the structure on theland has been deducted from the Award dated 01.10.2003 by the ReviewAward dated 14.07.2004 on the ground of the same being illegal structure,which actually amounts to Review of the Award and cannot be said toDbe a correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake. The questionwhether the structure on the land of the appellants was legal or illegalcould only be decided after the parties were given opportunity to adduceevidence, which correction cannot be termed as correction of any clericalor arithmetical mistake. There being no provision under the LandEAcquisition Act, 1894 for review of the Award, the passing of the orderdated 14.07.2004 in Review Award no.16/03-04 cannot be justified inlaw.

11. Section 12 of the Act clearly provides that the Award of theCollector shall become final on the same being filed in the Collector’sFoffice, of which the Collector shall give immediate notice to the personsinterested. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the Award dated01.10.2003, of which due notice had been given to the appellants andpart compensation had also been paid to the appellants in pursuancethereto, had become final and the same could not have been reviewed,and that too beyond a period of six months, within which period onlyGclerical or arithmetical mistakes could have been corrected.

12. It is settled law that the power of Review can be exercisedonly when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any suchprovision in the concerned statute, such power of Review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. This Court in the case ofKalabharati 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 incase of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of anyprovision in the Act granting an express power of review, it ismanifest that a review could not be made and the order inreview, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction.(Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao KhanderaoJambekar [AIR 1965 SC 1457] and Harbhajan Singh v.Karam Singh [AIR 1966 SC 641] .)

13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman SinghjiArjunsinghji [(1971) 3 SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273] , MajorChandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan [(1979) 1 SCC321] , Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya[(1987) 4 SCC 525 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 491 : AIR 1987 SC2186] , State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records andSettlement [(1998) 7 SCC 162] and Sunita Jain v. PawanKumar Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 705 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 537]this Court held that the power to review is not an inherentpower. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specificallyor by necessary implication and in the absence of anyprovision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order isimpermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction ofreview can be derived only from the statute and thus, any orderof review in the absence of any statutory provision for the sameis a nullity, being without jurisdiction.

14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point canbe summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutoryprovision providing for review, entertaining an applicationfor review or under the garb of clarification /modification/correction is not permissible.”

13. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the Award dated01.10.2003 could not have been reviewed by the Collector, and thus we A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aallow these appeals and quash the order dated 04.07.2004 passed bythe Collector in Review Award No.16/03-04 as well as the orderdated 04.03.2010 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.2185 of 2008 and Writ Petition (C) No.381 of 2009. The appellantsshall thus be entitled to the compensation as awarded in terms of theAward of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 01.10.2003, and theBSupplementary Award dated 27.10.2004.

No orders as to costs.

C

Ankit Gyan

Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H