Abhishekh vs Bhu Arjan Adhikari & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16750 MP

                                                       1
                            IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                           ON THE 10 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 6574 of 2006

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    ABHISHEKH S/O KAILASH CHAND AGRAWAL,
                                 AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, HARSUD AT PRESENT
                                 KHIDKIYA TAH. KHIDKIYA DISTT. HARDA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT.SHAKUNTALAKAILASH          CHANDRA
                                 AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HARSUD AT
                                 PRESENT KHIDKIYA TAH. KHIDKIYA DISTT.
                                 HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    KU.BHARTIKAILASH CHAND AGRAWAL, AGED
                                 ABOUT   21   YEARS, HARSUD AT PRESENT
                                 KHIDKIYA TAH. KHIDKIYA DISTT. HARDA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI SHASHANK UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    BHU ARJAN ADHIKARI & REHABILITATION OFF.
                                 OCCUPATION: INDIRA SAGAR      PARIYOJNA
                                 HARSUD TAH. HARSUD DISTT. KHANDWA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE      COLLECTOR KHANDWA         (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    GENERAL     MANAGER N.H.D.C.,   KHANDWA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    THE STATE OF M.P. IRRIGATION DEPTT.,
                                 NARMADA GHATI VIKAS PRADHI., BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    COM M ISSION ER INDORE DIVISION,    INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 10/11/2023
11:07:42 AM
                                                        2
                           6.    M EM BER REHABILITATION, NARMADA VALLEY
                                 DEV.AUTHY. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI VED PRAKASH TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                           (BY SHRI ARPAN PAWAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                    ORDER

This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 12.02.2006, Annexure P-18, whereby the Land Acquisition Officer, N.H.D.C. Harsud No.3 has passed a revised award dehors the provisions contained in Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

It is submitted that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 30.06.2004, then a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 27.09.2004. Thereafter, notice under Section 9(3) dated 07.03.2005 was issued. Statement of claim was filed on 01.08.2005, vide Annexure P-8 award was passed.

It is submitted that after having passed an award on 01.08.2005, the Land Acquisition Officer was not authorized to review his own orders inasmuch as Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act only authorizes the Collector to carry out correction of clerical errors etc. It is submitted that the impugned order having been passed beyond the authority deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel for N.H.D.C. Shri Arpan Pawar, in his turn, submits that the fact of the matter is that the State Government received a complaint that that the land appurtenant to the house of the various claimants was being claimed at a much higher dimension and that was an attempt to defraud the authorities of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 10/11/2023 11:07:42 AM

the State, as a result State Government had formed a 12 member committee and on the basis of the recommendations of the said committee, impugned revised award has been passed which is the bone of contention in the present case.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, award was admittedly passed on 01.08.2005, Annexure P-8, in Revenue Case No.17-A/82/year 2003-2004. Section 13-A(1) provides that the Collector may at any time but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under Section 18 to make a reference to the Court, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors arising therein neither on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a local authority :

Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter.

In the present case, it is admitted that respondents are permitted to only correct clerical or arithmetical error.

According to the earlier award, acquired piece of land was 3000 square meter which was reduced to 2,200/- square meter.

Though Shri Pawar submits that an enquiry was conducted by a 12 member team but report of such 12 member team is not available on record.

There is an oblique reference to the said 12 member team as was constituted but it has not come on record that whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by that 12 member team and on what basis they reduce the area from 3,000 square meter. to 2,200 square meter. and, therefore, in absence of there being any factual material produced by the respondents then in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 10/11/2023 11:07:42 AM

Others Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 9 SCC 416 wherein it is held that review of award after it attained finality is not permissible, I am of the view that the impugned award dated 12.02.2006 cannot be given a seal of approval.

Therefore, impugned award is hereby quashed. It is directed that petitioner will be entitled to get compensation in terms of the award dated 01.08.2005.

In above terms, petition is allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH KHAN Signing time: 10/11/2023 11:07:42 AM