Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O Subhash Wattamwar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:7734-DB
970.WP.796.2021 JUDGMENT.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.796 OF 2021
PETITIONER :- Rajesh S/o Subhash Wattamwar,
Aged : 52 yr, Occup : Agriculturist,
R/o : At Post Saykheda, Tal and Dist.
Washim.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of Revenue and
Forests, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The District Collector, Collector office,
Washim.
3) The Competent Authority & Sub-
Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition
Officer, Land Acquisition, Washim, Tal :
and Dist: Washim.
4) The Project Director, National Highway
Authority of India, Amrawati Division,
Amrawati.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr V.B. Patil, Adv. h/f Mr. V.P. Kadam, Adv. for petitioner.
Mr N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents/State.
Mr. A.A. Kathane, Advocate for respondent No.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 05/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J.)
970.WP.796.2021 JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. A small issue is involved, which is no longer res-integra
in view of the judgments of this Court. The issue is whether, after an
award is passed, the authority can issue second award revising the
first award.
4. The brief facts of the present case are as under :-
The petitioner land was acquired by the respondent
No.3. The award was passed on 19.07.2019 determining the
compensation amount to the tune of Rs.3,66,51,520/-. The said
award was approved by the Competent Authority of National
Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as "NHAI") i.e.
the regional office NHAI, Nagpur. Thereafter, the said amount was
deposited with the Competent Authority Land Acquisition
(hereinafter referred to as "CALA") and S.D.O., Washim, on
07.11.2019, in compliance of Section 3(H)2 of the National
Highways Act, 1956.
970.WP.796.2021 JUDGMENT.odt
5. Subsequently, on 21.11.2019, the award came to be
modified and the amount of compensation was reduced to
Rs.1,66,85,258/-.
6. The Aurangabad Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition
No.1883 of 2018 and in connected matters, passed judgment on
08.11.2019, in similar facts and circumstances as the present case, it
has held thus :-
"20. It is trite that if any statute requires a particular thing
to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that
manner only otherwise not to be done at all. Respondent
no.3, while preparing the second award has not only
corrected the first award but has passed a different award
altogether. It was also not a case of clerical or arithmetical
corrections but the market value has been reduced by
respondent no.3 while passing the second award.
Respondent no.3 assumed the authority not vested with
him.
21. One thing that needs to be considered is that the award
passed by respondent no.3 can be challenged before the
Arbitrator by any party, even by the acquiring body. But
under the Act-2013 that right is not given to the acquiring
body or the State. That is the marked difference in both the
statutes. In view of that, if there is some mistake committed
in the award, the acquiring body or any such person has a
right to challenge the said award and probably for the said
reasons the provision for correction of award is not
incorporated under the National Highways Act, 1956.
23. In normal course, we would certainly not have
entertained the petitions and would have relegated the
petitioners to the remedy available under the provisions of
the National Highways Act, 1956. However, in the present
matter, after the final award was passed respondent no. 3
ventured to pass the second award in respect of the same
lands and reduced the valuation of the lands and that too
970.WP.796.2021 JUDGMENT.odt
after respondent no. 4 had accepted the final award and
also deposited the amount of compensation. No material is
placed on record to suggest as to what prevailed upon
respondent no. 3 to reduce the valuation and pass second
award after the final award was passed. The act of
respondent no. 3 in passing the second award without the
first award being rescinded is arbitrary, illegal and does not
stand to reason."
7. In another judgment of the Aurangabad Bench in the
case of Bhupendrasingh S/o Sardarsingh Parmar ..vs.. Competent
Authority for National High and others, reported in 2019 Legal
Eagle (BOM) 1883, it has observed thus :-
"28.The net result of the discussion, as made above, is that
the provisions of section 33 of the Act of 2013, are not
available to the Competent Authority constituted u/s. 3(a)
of the NH Act, 1956, in the process of acquisition of land
under the NH Act, 1956 and 15 thus, 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."
8. The above referred both the judgments have categorically
held that, it is not permissible for SDO and CALA to revise first
award. This course of action is not available to SDO and CALA,
Washim. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
i) The writ petition is allowed.
970.WP.796.2021 JUDGMENT.odt
ii) The order dated 21.11.2023 issued by the respondent
No.3 - CALA, modifying the order dated 19.07.2019, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) In view of this order, the respondent No.3 shall take
steps to disburse the amount to the persons entitled to
receive the compensation, at the earliest.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
