Allowed

Indra Devi v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022WRIC/13885/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Court examined the validity of a revised award passed by the competent authority. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that without express statutory authority, the authority lacked jurisdiction to review the award under the guise of clerical correction. The revised award was quashed, but th

What did the court decide?

The revised award dated 15.05.2018 was quashed. The National Highway Authority of India was granted liberty to challenge the original award under Section 3-G(5) of the Act.

Indra Devi Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13885 of 2021 Petitioner :- Indra Devi Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla,Jeetendra Singh,Ravi Shankar Prasad(Senior Adv.)

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jeetendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioners in all the connected petitions, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra learned counsel appears for the National Highway Authority of India and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

¶6

The challenge to the award dated 15.05.2018 and the notice dated 24.06.2019 issued by the respondent No.3 namely the competent authority (National Highway Authority of India/ Land Acquisition Officer) District, Kaushambi, U.P. is on the ground that the award passed under Section 3-G(1) of the National Highways Act' 1956 could not be revised or reviewed by the competent authority.

¶7

It is argued that on the similar sets of facts and issue, the revised award was passed by the competent authority with respect to another village, subject matter of acquisition in the same notification as that of the petitioners land, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgement and order dated 26.02.2020 in Writ Petition No.22248 of 2019 ( Sita Ram & others Vs. Union of India & others ) has held the revised award passed by the competent authority being without jurisdiction and hence quashed it. It was observed by the Division Bench therein that the competent authority had no jurisdiction to revise the rates of compensation and pass a fresh award in the garb of making clerical and arithmetical correction in the original award. However, liberty was granted to the National Highway Authority to pursue the remedy available to it under Section 3-G(5) of the Act' 1956.

¶8

Sri Pranjal Mehrotra learned counsel for the respondent authority submits that

¶9

the authority has already challenged the original awards by approaching the Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the Act' 1956 and in some of the connected writ petition, the original awards have also been quashed by the Arbitrator whereas with regard to other villages, the matter is pending before the Arbitrator.

¶10

The stand of the State-respondent is that the competent authority namely the respondent No.3 has not reviewed the original award dated 20.10.2017 rather on seeing the gross error apparent on the record in calculation of the amount of compensation, in exercise of the inherent power to rectify/amend the error, fresh award was passed on 15.05.2018.

¶11

Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Naresh Kumar @ others Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi reported in 2019 (9) SCC 416. The paragraph Nos.9 & 12 are quoted as under:-

¶12

“9. In our considered view, 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.

¶13

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. This Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437, has held as under:"……………

¶14

12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasijudicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar [AIR 1965 SC 1457] and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh [AIR 1966 SC 641] .)

¶15

13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji 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 order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction.

¶16

14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of

¶17

clarification /modification/ correction is not permissible."

¶18

Having noticed the contentions of the respondents in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf, a perusal of the original award dated 20.10.2017 as also the revised award dated 15.05.2018, it is evident that substantial changes therein have been made in the determination of the valuation of the land, subject matter of acquisition on the letters written by the Higher Authorities. Such correction cannot be said to be a clerical error which could have been rectified in exercise of the inherent power of the competent authority. The revision of the original awards dated 20.10.2017 under the garb of correction of clerical/gross error suffers from jurisdictional error. The revised award dated 15.05.2018, therefore, cannot be sustained and hence quashed.

¶19

However, the National Highway Authority of India is at liberty to challenge the original award before the Arbitrator by invoking provision of Section 3-G(5) of the Act' 1956, if not already challenged.

¶20

It is made clear that the rejection of the contention of the State-respondents that the valuation of the land was mistakenly applied and correction was, thus, made by the competent authority or by the observations made herein above will not come in the way of the Arbitrator in passing an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law.

¶21

Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Himanshu

¶23

Digitally signed by HIMANSHU YADAV Date: 2022.11.25 18:34:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indra Devi v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Devi v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hps It Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Mma Grain Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Pal Enterprises Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh Chandra Sahu and 9 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt. Brij Rani and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Roopa Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others