Kavita D/o Kedarnath Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Pithora Post and P.S. and v. 1- Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Road Transport and Highways, Mantralaya New Delhi
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:2114 HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPC No. 2048 of 2014 Kavita D/o Kedarnath Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Pithora Post and P.S. and Tahsil Pithora, Civil and Revenue Distt. Mahasamund C.G. , Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1- Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Road Transport and Highways, Mantralaya New Delhi , Delhi. 2 - National Highway Authority of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Throug Its Chairman Head office G-5 and 6, Sector 10, Dwarika New Delhi, Delhi. 3 - Project Director Project Implementation Unit Raipur A -7, Vip Estate Shanker Nagar Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4- The Collector Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5- The Sub Divisional officer Revenue Authorized officer Land Acquisition Pithora Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) With WPC No. 2049 of 2014 Lukesh Kumar Sinha, S/o Prem Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sarkada, Post Bhithidih, Ps and Tah Pithora, Civil and Revenue Distt Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1- Union of India , Through Its Secretary, Road Transport and Highways, Mantralaya, New Delhi 110075. -2- 2- National Highway Authority of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Through Its Chairman, Head office, G-5 and 6, Sector 10, Dwarika, New Delhi 110075, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3- Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur A-7, Vip Estate, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Dist Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 – Collector, Mahasamund, Distt Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5- Sub Divisional officer (Revenue) Authorized officer, Land Acquisition, Pithora, --- Respondent(s) Mahasamund, Distt Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
He would further submit that the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahesh Nachrani & ors. v. Union of India and others passed in WPC/665/2019 and other connected matters decided on 14.09.2020, while dealing with a similar issue held that the power of review cannot be exercised by the land acquisition officer in the absence of any such provision in the Act, 1956. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhayay, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Paranjpe and submit that lands of the petitioners were sub-divided after publication of the notification under Section 3(a) of the Act, 1956, therefore, their names were removed by the land acquisition officer. He -4- would further submit that there is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioners to approach the arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956. 5) Mr. Rajeev Bharat, learned Government Advocate would support the submissions made by Mr. Mukhopadhayay. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 7) In the matter of Mahesh Nachrani (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para -4 formulated the following issues. “Whether the prescribed authority i.e. Land Acquisition Officer, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer has a power to review, amend or modify a final award under Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956.” 8) The question so formulated was answered in para 19, 20 & 21 as under:- “19. From the reading of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the various High Courts as also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court a fact which stands established is that unless the provision of law i.e. the statute provides for the power of review, an award once passed in itself becomes final. The position of Law also gets well settled on the basis of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements that the power of review is not an inherent power, it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. A review is always considered to be a creature of statute and the power of review cannot be entertained in the absence of a provision thereof. 20.What is also required to be considered at this juncture is, can the amended award passed by the authorities be brought within the ambit of Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which empowers the Collector to carry out correction in so far as any clerical or arithmetic mistake and -5- which can be done either on his own motion or on the application from an interested party. In the factual matrix of the case by way of the amended award, the prescribed authority has modified the order to the extent of changing the methodology of calculation thereby has reduced the compensation substantially from what was quantified in the original award. Thus, it is evidently clear that it was not a clerical or an arithmetic error, which the authority has carried out, rather it is a case where the prescribed authority has reviewed his own award and has modified the award detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. What has also to be seen at this juncture is that the original award was passed on 01.06.2018, however the amended award has been passed on 05.10.2018 i.e. after a period of more than 4 months. 21. As regards the objection of the respondents, so far as the right of the petitioners to challenge the award by way of an arbitration invoking Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that, once when the challenge is made to the amended award primarily on the ground of, lack of jurisdiction and competence on the part of the prescribed authority, in reviewing his award and the ground being that of the authorities being denuded of their power of review this Court is of the opinion that under such circumstances, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercising the power of judicial review can entertain a writ petition in this regard, even in the case, if there is a provision of appeal provided under the statute. It is by now a well settled proposition of law that when a challenge to an order is primarily on the ground of jurisdiction and competence of the authority Writ Court can entertain a writ petition. Thus, the objection so far as the petitioners having an alliterative remedy stands rejected.” 9) From a bare reading of the findings recorded on the issue framed by the Co-Ordinate Bench, it can safely be held that the land acquisition officer has no power to modify, amend or review the final award passed by it. Therefore, the modified award passed by the land acquisition officer dated 24.05.2014 is hereby quashed. 10) The petitioners shall be entitled to get all benefits as granted in the earlier -6- award dated 16.12.2013, meanwhile, the quashment and setting aside of the revised award by this Court in the present writ petitions would reopen the liberty of the respondents to assail the same, if law permits so. Accordingly, these writ petitions are hereby allowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim
Arguments
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with Ms. For Respondent No.1 : None, though served Anushka Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate State/Respondents For No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.01.2025 1) The petitioners have challenged the modified award dated 24.05.2014 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer/respondent No.5, whereby the names of the petitioners were removed from the award. 2) Brief facts of the present case, are that the petitioner - Kavita is the recorded owner of the land bearing survey No. 303/3, ad-measuring 500 m2 whereas another petitioner-Lukesh Kumar Sinha, is the recorded owner of land bearing survey No. 847/6, ad-measuring 200 m2. A notice under -3- Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, the Act, 1956) was published on 06.11.20211 and the final award was passed on 16.12.2013. Before passing the final award, the names of the petitioners were in the list of eligible land oustees at serial Nos. 141 and 89, respectively and they were awarded the amount of Rs. 44.40 lakhs and 17.76 lakhs, respectively. Later on, respondent No. 5 reviewed its earlier award and removed the names of the petitioners from the list of eligible land oustees. 3) Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra.