The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Modified Supplementary Award dated 25th March 2021 passed by the Deputy Collector and also praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 22nd September 2021 issued by the Deputy Collector, among other reliefs. The Court observed that once the award has been passed by the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority loses any authority to tinker with it in any manner whatsoever.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioners are the owners of the land measuring 4 acres situated at Valsang, Pune. The Executive Engineer submitted a proposal to the District Collector for the acquisition of the land admeasuring 67.67 k.m. for the extension of a four-lane highway between Solapur and Gulbarga. The District Collector thereafter appointed the Deputy Collector as a Competent Authority for acquisition proceedings.
Respondent No.3 determined the compensation of the Petitioner's area measuring 800 sq, mtrs. to be Rs.49,39,164/-. On 22nd September 2021, Nagesh Patil ― Respondent No.3 ― decreased the Petitioners’ compensation amount from Rs.49,39,164/- to Rs.30,49,645/-. The Petitioners called for the information under the Right to Information Act on 24th September 2021, when the Petitioners were informed that the Authority did not have any information as called upon by the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the original award having been made determining the compensation in the sum of Rs.49,39,164/- for the acquisition of the Petitioner’s private land measuring 800 sq. mtrs., the Respondent No.3 could not have made any such supplementary award. He submitted that there is no such power prescribed under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 in the Competent Authority to issue a supplementary award.
He contended that the Petitioners have been paid the reduced amount, which was accepted by the Petitioners without prejudice to the rights and the Petitioners seek a differential amount by filing this Petition.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and argued that in the supplementary award, Respondent No.3 reduced the compensation amount in respect of 500 sq. mtrs. and determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.1030/- and for Rs.300/-, Rs.824/- as against the original rate of Rs.1520/- per sq. mtrs.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that in this case the National Highway Authority did not challenge the said award under Section 3(G)(5) and did not apply for a reduction of the compensation amount by filing an application before the learned Arbitrator by invoking the provision under Section 3(G((5). The Court said that it is impermissible for the Competent Authority to make any correction or for that matter to pass any order in the nature of correction of an award or for that matter an amended award. Once the award has been passed by the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority loses any authority to tinker with it in any manner whatsoever.
Further, the Court remarked that neither the Amendment Ordinance No. 9 of 2014 nor the notification dated 28th August 2015 make the provisions of section 33 of the Act of 2013 applicable to acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956, in absence of which, it cannot be held that the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956, would have any power or authority to either correct the award for any reason whatsoever, or for that matter, to pass an additional award or to review the same.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the balance amount i.e., Rs.18,89,519/- shall be released by Respondent No.3 to the Petitioners.
Case Title: Sau.Sangeeta Natwarlal Karwa & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R.D. Dhanuka and Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sathaye
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.5327 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj A. Patil
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. V.S. Gokhale
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
