TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Award once passed under Section 11 of the Act and had attained finality. The only provision is for correction of clerical errors in the Award which is provided for under Section 13A of the Act, which was inserted with effect from 24.09.1984 - A bare reading of the said Section 13A would make it clear that the same is not a provision for Review of the Award but only for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the Award. It is further provided in the sub-Section (1) of Section 13A that the said correction can be made 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 made any correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake, but has in fact rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd under Section 11 of the Act, the Signature Not Verified Award could be reviewed under any of the provisions of the Act, Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.10.17 17:17:11 IST Reason: specially under Section 13A of the Act. 2. Brief facts of this case, relevant for the purpose of the present appeals are, that land of the appellants was sought to be acquired by a notification dated 23.05.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 17.12.2002. An Award bearing no.16/03 04 dated 01.10.2003 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector awarding compensation of ₹ 1,97,08,397/ in favour of the appellants, out of which, an amount of ₹ 1,87,10,194/ was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants is that after the Award had been passed on 01.10.2003 under Section 11 of the Act, the same had become final as per Section 12 of the Act, and the same could not have been reviewed under any provision of the Act. It has been contended that the only provision is for correction of clerical errors etc. under Section 13A of the Act, which only permits the Collector to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the Award, and that too within a period of six months and not beyond. It is thus contended that Award dated 01.10.2003 had attained finality, and could not have been reviewed under any of the provisions of the Act. It is lastly contended that the Supplementary Award dated 27.10.2004 was passed for compensation of the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant Section 13A of the Act reads as under: 13A. Correction of clerical errors, etc. (1) 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 either 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. (2) The Collector shall give imme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view Award 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 to be a correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake. The question whether the structure on the land of the appellants was legal or illegal could only be decided after the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence, which correction cannot be termed as correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake. There being no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for review of the Award, the passing of the order dated 14.07.2004 in Review Award no.16/03 04 cannot be justified in law. 11. Section 12 of the Act clearly provides that the Award of the Collector shall become final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hji Arjunsinghji [(1971) 3 SCC 844 :AIR 1970 SC 1273] , Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan [(1979) 1 SCC 321] , Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya [(1987) 4 SCC 525 : 1987 SCC (L S) 491 : AIR 1987 SC 2186] , State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records and Settlement [(1998) 7 SCC 162] and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 705 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 537] this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
