Bombay High Court
Duneshwar Suryabhan Pathe And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 29 April, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
907 MCA-252-2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.252 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2997 OF 2020
{Duneshwar Suryabhan Pethe and Ors. ...Versus... State of Maharashtra
and Ors.}
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Ms. P. S. Daga, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri. N. S. Rao, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri. A. Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Shri. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Shri. G. A. Kunte, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 29th APRIL, 2022.
. Heard Ms. P. S. Daga, learned Counsel for the
Petitioners, Shri. N. S. Rao, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3,
Shri. A. Parchure, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4,
Shri. J. B. Kasat, learned Counsel for the Respondent
Nos.5 and 6 and Shri. G. A. Kunte, learned Counsel for
Respondent No.7. All of appeared by waiving notice of
service.
2. In paragraph 4 of the judgment under review, this
Court has noted certain facts and on the basis of those
facts recorded its findings. These observations and
907 MCA-252-2022
findings appearing in paragraph 4 of the judgment, are
reproduced thus :
"4. On 02.09.2021 pursuant to the notice
issued in the writ petition, the Collector, Nagpur
found that even though the petitioners were
occupiers of the building that was standing on
the land under acquisition, none of the
petitioners had been issued any notice. It was
stated on behalf of the Collector that fresh
notices were proposed to be issued to all the
concerned occupiers for taking necessary action
for distributing the amount of compensation as
per the Act of 2013. Accordingly fresh notices
were duly issued and thereafter the names of
the petitioners came to be included by following
the provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 2013.
By the affidavit dated 27.07.2021 revised details
of properties especially CTS No.421 were
obtained from the Office of the City Survey
Officer and those details included the names of
the petitioners. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the
grievance of the petitioners with regard to
absence of their names in the award to enable
them to receive compensation pursuant to
acquisition of the part of the building standing
on CTS No.421 now stands redressed."
3. It would be clear from the findings recorded that
this Court considered the fact that pursuant to the fresh
notices issued to the Petitioners, names of the
907 MCA-252-2022
Petitioners came to be included by following the
provisions of Section 21 of Act of 2013, and therefore,
this Court also found that grievance of the Petitioners
with regard to their names not appearing in the Award
now stands redressed. The factual position, as agreed
by the rival parties is, however otherwise. Although
notices have been issued and they have been duly
received by the Petitioners, the further procedure
regarding inclusion of their names in the Award has not
been completed and therefore, the grievance of the
Petitioners with regard to not finding of their names in
the Award in question still remains.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer, as submitted on his
behalf by the learned Assistant Government Pleader,
finds no difficulty in inclusion of the names of the
Petitioners in the Award, if there is a judicial
determination to that effect from this Court. Once, it is
found that the Petitioners are the persons interested in
the land acquired, they would be entitled for inclusion of
their names in the Award so as to receive the
compensation proportionately. Therefore, non inclusion
of their names in the Award can be considered to be a
clerical error and that means provisions of Section 33 of
907 MCA-252-2022
Act of 2013 would come into play. This provision of law
enables the Collector to modify the Award by making
necessary corrections, if there are any clerical or
arithmetical mistakes in the Award. So, the Collector can
very well correct the Clerical mistake which has
occurred in the present case. However, only difficulty,
as we see, faced by the Collector is of the Bar of
limitation. The Award is of the date of 07.08.2020 and
the Collector cannot exercise his power under Section
33 of Act of 2013 to correct the clerical or arithmetical
mistakes after expiry of period of six months from the
date of the Award. But, this difficulty, we find, can be
overcome in the interest of justice and equity by
exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In view of above, in modification of the findings
recorded in paragraph 4 of the judgment under review
to the effect that the grievance of the Petitioners in this
behalf has been redressed, we find that the grievance of
the Petitioners as regards the inclusion of their names in
the Award is yet to be redressed. In further modification,
we find that this grievance needs to be redressed and,
therefore, we direct the Land Acquisition Officer to
907 MCA-252-2022
correct the clerical mistake which has cropped up in the
Award in question by including the names of the
Petitioners in the Award in question. Such correction be
made within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of the judgment. After complying with this direction, the
Land Acquisition Officer shall take further necessary
steps as are mandated in law.
6. The review application is disposed of in the above
terms. No costs.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Tambe
Digitally signed
ASHISH by ASHISH
ASHOKRAO
ASHOKRAO TAMBE
TAMBE Date: 2022.04.29
18:16:33 +0530
