2019 (11) TMI 1152 - SC - Indian Laws

Review of an award - contention of the learned Counsel for 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 - whether under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the passing of the Award under Section 11 of the Act, the Signature Not Verified Award could be reviewed under any of the provisions of the Act? HELD THAT - There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for review of the 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 reviewed the Award dated 01.10.2003 by its Review Award no.16/03 04 dated 14.07.2004, which was also clearly passed beyond such period of six months - the Review Award could not have been passed under Section 13A of the Act, which is meant only for correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake. There is no other provision in the Act under which the said order dated 14.07.2004 could have been passed. 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 in Review Award cannot be justified in law. It is settled law that the power of Review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the concerned statute, such power of Review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. The Award dated 01.10.2003 could not have been reviewed by the Collector - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Review of Award under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 post passing of the Award under Section 11 - Interpretation of Section 13A for correction of clerical errors - Validity of Review Award reducing compensation - Finality of Award under Section 12 - Applicability of power of Review in absence of statutory provision.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the permissibility of reviewing an Award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically after the Award has been passed under Section 11. The question at hand is whether a Review Award could be issued under any provision of the Act, particularly Section 13A, post the finalization of the original Award.

2. The case background involves the acquisition of land by notification, followed by an Award in favor of the appellants. Subsequently, a Review Award was passed, reducing the compensation amount based on the exclusion of alleged illegal structures. The appellants were unaware of this Review Award initially.

3. The appellants contended that once an Award is passed under Section 11 and becomes final under Section 12, it cannot be reviewed under any provision of the Act except for correction of clerical errors under Section 13A. They argued that the Supplementary Award for tree compensation should have been paid.

4. Conversely, the respondent argued that mistakes in the Award could be corrected at any time. They claimed that the compensation for illegal structures was deducted based on statutory provisions and administrative instructions, denying the appellants' lack of knowledge regarding the Review Award.

5. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 13A, emphasizing its purpose for correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes within six months of the Award. The Court noted that the Review Award went beyond mere correction and amounted to a review of the original Award, which is not permissible under the Act.

6. The Court highlighted the finality of Awards under Section 12 and the absence of provisions for review in the Act. Citing legal precedents, including the necessity of statutory provisions for the power of review, the Court emphasized that review cannot be entertained in the absence of specific statutory authorization.

7. Consequently, the Court held that the Collector's Review Award was impermissible under Section 13A and quashed the Review Award and the High Court's judgment. The appellants were entitled to compensation as per the original Award and the Supplementary Award.

8. In conclusion, the Court clarified the limitations on reviewing Awards under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the need for statutory provisions to confer the power of review. The judgment reaffirmed the finality of Awards and restricted the authority's ability to review them without explicit statutory authorization.