# Sita Ram & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 531
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-26
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 22248 of 2019
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sita-ram-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-45996
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - National Highways Act, 1956 -
Section 3G (1) - Awards - Review of award -
Permissibility - No provision under National
Highways Act, for review of Award once
passed & attained finality - Only limited
provision
for
correction
of
clerical
/arithmetical mistakes or errors arising
therein
u/s
33
of
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013

Award granted compensation to the petitioners
@ of Rs. 5500/- sq. metre - subsequently
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competent
authority
reviewed
its
original
awards & granted compensation @ of Rs. 780/-
per sq. metre - Held - competent authority in
the garb of correcting clerical/arithmetical
mistake actually passed a fresh award after
reviewing the original awards, which is not
permissible - correction made, goes to the very
root of the matter & has the effect of reducing
the quantum of compensation awarded to a
great extent - Award set aside - liberty to avail
u/s 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 (Para 17,21,
22,23,24)

Allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

9 All. Sita Ram & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
531

23. Read in this manner, we do not
think the proviso should be given a greater or
more significant role in interpretation of the
main part of the notification, except as
carving out an exception. It means and
implies that the requirement of the proviso
should be satisfied i.e. manufacturing dealer
should not have charged the tax. The proviso
would not scuttle or negate the main
provision by holding that the first transaction
by the eligible manufacturing dealer in the
course by way of inter-state sale would be
exempt but if the inter-state sale is made by
trader/purchaser, the same would not be
exempt. That will not be the correct
understanding of the proviso. Giving over
due and extended implied interpretation to
the proviso in the notification will nullify and
unreasonably restrict the general and plain
words of the main notification. Such
construction is not warranted."

24. In view of the aforesaid
judgments, this Court is of the considered
view that no rider can be put to the proviso
of Section 6-E(2) so far as the conditions
mentioned therein are concerned for the
employer to comply with. The proviso
which imposes conditions for performance
of certain act, those conditions are to be
fulfilled by the employer, before he can
take action as contemplated under Subsection (2) of Section 6-E of the Act, 1947.

25. No other point has been pressed
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

26. Thus considered, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.

27. The respondent no. 1, in whose
favour the award was passed has died and
has
been
substituted
by
his
legal
representatives as respondent nos. 1/1 to
1/4. As such the monetary benefits under
the Award deserves to be given to the
respondent nos. 1/1 to 1/4, if not already
paid to the deceased respondent. It is
ordered accordingly.

28. The writ petition lacks merits and
is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.
----------
(2020)09ILR A531
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

WRIT - C No. 22248 of 2019
connected with
WRIT - C No. 19215 of 2019
connected with
WRIT - C No. 25323 of 2019
connected with
WRIT - C No. 23046 of 2019

Sita Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Balendra Deo Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Neeraj Dube

Civil Law - National Highways Act, 1956 -
Section 3G (1) - Awards - Review of award -
Permissibility - No provision under National
Highways Act, for review of Award once
passed & attained finality - Only limited
provision
for
correction
of
clerical
/arithmetical mistakes or errors arising
therein
u/s
33
of
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013

Award granted compensation to the petitioners
@ of Rs. 5500/- sq. metre - subsequently
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competent
authority
reviewed
its
original
awards & granted compensation @ of Rs. 780/-
per sq. metre - Held - competent authority in
the garb of correcting clerical/arithmetical
mistake actually passed a fresh award after
reviewing the original awards, which is not
permissible - correction made, goes to the very
root of the matter & has the effect of reducing
the quantum of compensation awarded to a
great extent - Award set aside - liberty to avail
u/s 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 (Para 17,21,
22,23,24)

Allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited:-

1. Naresh Kumar & ors. Vs Government (NCT of
Delhi) (2019) 9 SCC 416

2. Raj Kumar Soni & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
(2007) 10 SCC 635

3. A.V. Papayya Sastry & ors. Vs Govt. of A.P. &
ors. Appeal (Civil) No. 5097-5099 of 2004

4.Yashwant Sinha & ors. Vs. CBI thru its
Director & Anr. passed by the Apex Court in
Review Petition (Crl.) No. 46 of 2019 in Writ
Petition (Crl.) No. 298 of 2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna
Narayana, J.
 & Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

(By the Court)

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Balendra Deo
Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Neeraj
Dube, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 4. None appears on behalf of the
respondent no. 1.

2. Pleadings between the parties have
been exchanged and with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, we are
disposing of this writ petition finally at the
admission stage in accordance with the
High Court Rules.

3. The facts of this case may be stated
briefly hereinbelow :-

The petitioners in WRIT - C No. -
22248 of 2019, claim themselves to be the
recorded owners of following plots namely
:- Plot nos. 1730/0.0384, 1071/0.0042 sq.
metre (owned by petitioner no. 1), plot no.
1732/288 sq. metre (owned by petitioner
nos. 2, 3 & 4), plot nos. 1077/0.0795,
1742/0.0114 sq. metre (owned by petitioner
nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8), plot no. 1106/0.0231,
1104/0.0209 sq. metre (owned by petitioner
no. 10), plot no. 1822/0.0504 sq. metre
(owned by petitioner no. 11), plot no.
1650/0.0172 sq. metre (owned by petitioner
no. 12), plot no. 1322/0.0129 sq. metre
(owned by petitioner nos. 13 and 14), plot
no. 1722/0.0200 sq. metre (owned by
petitioner nos. 15, 16 and 43), plot no.
1721/0.0230 sq. metre (owned by petitioner
nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and
41), plot nos. 1150/0.0216, 1158/0.0042,
1154/0.0060,
1152/0.0480
sq.
metre
(owned by petitioner nos. 26 and 27), plot
no. 1120/0.0335, 1095/0.0363 sq. metre
(owned by petitioner nos. 28, 29, 30 and
40), plot no. 1107/0.0027 sq. metre (owned
by petitioner no. 31), plot no. 1028/0.1106
sq. metre (owned by petitioner nos. 32, 34
and 36), plot no. 1027/0.0868 sq. metre
(owned by petitioner no. 37), plot no.
1034/0.0780 sq. metre (owned by petitioner
no. 39), plot no. 1043/0.1232 sq. metre
(owned by petitioner nos. 46 and 47), plot
no. 1136/2118/0.0178 sq. metre (owned by
petitioner no. 45).

4. The petitioner in connected WRIT -
C No. - 19215 of 2019, claims herself to be
9 All. Sita Ram & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
533
the recorded owner of Gata No. 1121 area
320 sq. metre.

5. The petitioners in connected WRIT
- C No. - 25323 of 2019 claim themselves
to be the recorded owners of plot nos. 364,
357, 416, 371, 296A, 295, 423, 370, 358,
426, 293, 418, 366, 340, 369 and 342.

6. The petitioners in connected WRIT
- C No. - 23046 of 2019 claim themselves
to be the recorded owners of plot nos.
1934/0.0672 sq. metre, 1942/0.0159 sq.
metre, 1939/0.0190 sq. metre, 2151/0.0384
sq.
metre,
2153/0.0576
sq.
metre,
1979/0.0203 sq. metre, 2310/0.0168 sq.
metre,
1887/0.0112
sq.
metre,
1781M/0.0624 sq. metre, 1985/0.0168 sq.
metre, 1863/0.0768 sq. metre, 2311/0.0224
sq.
metre,
2163/0.0480
sq.
metre,
1885/0.0230 sq. metre, 2164/0.0264 sq.
metre, 2317/0.0110 sq. metre, 2313/0.0288
sq.
metre,
1739/0.0568
sq.
metre,
1936/0.0578 sq. metre, 1989/0.0192 sq.
metre, 1935/0.1102 sq. metre, 1862/0.0559
sq.
metre,
2151/0.0384
sq.
metre,
1863/0.0768 sq. metre, 2153/0.0576 sq.
metre, 1796/0.0182 sq. metre, 1945/0.0130
sq.
metre,
1792/0.0684
sq.
metre,
2309/0.0270 sq. metre, 1862/0.0559 sq.
metre, 2319/0.0091 sq. metre, 2320/0.0123
sq. metre and 2321/0.0091 sq. metre

7. The plots of the aforesaid
petitioners which are situated in villages-
Kakora, Nauria Karaiti and Kasia, Tehsil-
Sirathu, District- Kaushambi were required
by the respondents for the purpose of
widening National Highway Road in
Chakeri-Allahabad Section. Awards were
made u/s 3G (1) of National Highways Act,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by
the competent authority on 18.01.2018 (in
WRIT - C Nos. - 22248 of 2019 and 19215
of 2019), on 20.04.2017 (in WRIT - C No.
- 25323 of 2019) and on 20.10.2017 (in
WRIT - C No. - 23046 of 2019) granting
compensation to the petitioners in lieu of
acquisition of their land at the rate of Rs.
5500/- sq. metre. There is nothing on
record indicating that the award passed by
the competent authority u/s 3G (1) of the
Act was challenged by the respondents by
filing any application before the arbitrator
u/s 3G (5) of the Act. However, a fresh
award was made by the competent
authority u/s 3G (1) of the Act on
15.05.2018 (Annexure No. 5 to WRIT - C
No. - 25323 of 2019, Annexure No. 6 to
WRIT - C Nos. - 22248 of 2019 and 23046
of 2019 and Annexure No. 9 to WRIT - C
No. 19215 of 2019) by which the
competent authority reviewed its original
awards and granted compensation at the
rate of Rs. 60,00,000/- per hectare or Rs.
780/- per sq. metre.

8. It is contended by Sri Shashi
Nandan, Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners that there being no power of
review conferred upon the competent
authority under the Act, the fresh award
passed by the competent authority by
which the rate of compensation was
reduced from Rs. 5,500/- per sq. metre to
Rs. 780/- per sq. metre, is wholly without
jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. He
further submitted that Section 33 of Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013
(hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act of 2013'), limited
provisions
whereof
relating
to
determination of compensation have been
made applicable to the proceedings under
the Act, empowers the Collector to correct
any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in
awards or errors arising therein either on
his own motion or on the application of any
person interested or local authority.
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. In support of the aforesaid
contention, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned
counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance upon Naresh Kumar and others
Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) reported
in (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 416.

10. Per contra, Sri Neeraj Dube, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4
strenuously urged before us that by the impugned
award, the competent authority has not reviewed
its original awards but has merely ordered
correction of certain clerical mistakes in the
original awards. He further submitted that since
the petitioners' land was agricultural, the
competent authority, while passing the original
awards, had manifestly erred in awarding
compensation at the rate of per sq. metre whereas
it was required to determine compensation at the
rate of per hectare and at the most, it can be said
that the procedural mistake had been corrected by
passing the impugned order.

11. In support of the aforesaid
contention, he has placed reliance upon Raj
Kumar Soni and Another Vs. State of
U.P. And Another reported in (2007) 10
Supreme Court Cases 635, A.V. Papayya
Sastry & Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. &
Ors. passed by the Apex Court in Appeal
(Civil) No. 5097-5099 of 2004 and
Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation through its
Director & Anr. passed by the Apex Court
in Review Petition (Crl.) No. 46 of 2019 in
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 298 of 2018.

12.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
also adopted the submissions made by Sri
Neeraj Dube, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 4.

13. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material
brought on record as well as the law reports
cited before us.

14. In order to appreciate the
respective submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties, it would be useful to
extract following provisions of Section 3G
of the Act and Section 33 of Act of 2013 :-

Section 3G of The National Highways
Act, 1956
1[3G. Determination of amount payable as
compensation.--

(1) Where any land is acquired
under this Act, there shall be paid an
amount which shall be determined by an
order of the competent authority.

(2) Where the right of user or any
right in the nature of an easement on, any
land is acquired under this Act, there shall
be paid an amount to the owner and any
other person whose right of enjoyment in
that land has been affected in any manner
whatsoever by reason of such acquisition
an amount calculated at ten per cent. of the
amount determined under sub-section (1),
for that land.

(3)
Before
proceeding
to
determine the amount under sub-section (1)
or sub-section (2), the competent authority
shall give a public notice published in two
local newspapers, one of which will be in a
vernacular language inviting claims from
all persons interested in the land to be
acquired.

(4) Such notice shall state the
particulars of the land and shall require all
persons interested in such land to appear in
person or by an agent or by a legal
practitioner referred to in sub-section (2)
of section 3C, before the competent
authority, at a time and place and to state
the nature of their respective interest in
such land.
9 All. Sita Ram & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
535

(5) If the amount determined by
the competent authority under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to
either of the parties, the amount shall, on
an application by either of the parties, be
determined
by
the arbitrator
to
be
appointed by the Central Government.

(6) Subject to the provisions of
this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)
shall apply to every arbitration under this
Act.

(7) The competent authority or
the arbitrator while determining the
amount under sub-section (1) or subsection (5), as the case may be, shall take
into consideration--

(a) the market value of the land
on
the
date
of
publication
of
the
notification under section 3A;

(b) the damage, if any, sustained
by the person interested at the time of
taking possession of the land, by reason of
the severing of such land from other land;

(c) the damage, if any, sustained
by the person interested at the time of
taking possession of the land, by reason of
the acquisition injuriously affecting his
other immovable property in any manner,
or his earnings;

(d) if, in consequences of the
acquisition of the land, the person
interested is compelled to change his
residence or place of business, the
reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to
such change.]

Section 33 of The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013

33. Corrections to awards by
Collector.-(1) The Collector may at any
time, but not later than six months from the
date of award or where he has been
required under the provisions of this Act to
make a reference to the Authority under
section 64, before the making of such
reference, by order, correct any clerical or
arithmetical mistakes in either of the
awards or errors arising therein either on
his own motion or on the application of any
person interested or 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 representation in the matter.

(2) The Collector shall give
immediate notice of any correction made in
the award so corrected to all the persons
interested.

(3) Where any excess amount is
proved to have been paid to any person as
a result of the correction made under subsection (1), the excess amount so paid shall
be liable to be refunded and in the case of
any default or refusal to pay, the same may
be recovered, as prescribed by the
appropriate Government.

15. Even the most superficial reading
of the aforesaid provisions indicate that
where compensation awarded u/s 3G (1) or
(2) of the Act is not acceptable to either of
the parties, the amount of compensation on
an application by either of the parties will
be determined by the arbitrator to be
appointed by the Central Government and
subject to the provisions of the Act, the
provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration
proceeding under the Act. Sub-section (7)
of Section 3G of the Act enumerates the
principles which the competent authority or
the
arbitrator
while
determining
the
compensation u/s sub-section (1) or subsection (5) of Section 3G shall take into
consideration.
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. Sri Neeraj Dube, learned counsel
for the respondent no. 4 has failed to bring
to our attention any provision under the Act
conferring power of review on the
competent authority. His reliance placed on
Section 33 of Act of 2013 is wholly
misconceived. Under Section 33 of Act of
2013, the only power given to the Collector
is to correct clerical and arithmetical errors
in the award either suo motu or on an
application by either of the parties.

17. Having very carefully gone
through the original awards and the fresh
award, we find that the competent authority
has
in
the
garb
of
correcting
clerical/arithmetical mistake, has actually
passed a fresh award after reviewing the
original awards. The correction made, goes
to the very root of the matter and has the
effect
of
reducing
the
quantum
of
compensation awarded to the petitioners to
a great extent. In our opinion, if the awards
passed by the competent authority were not
acceptable to respondent no. 4, the remedy
available to him was to file an application
u/s 3G (5) of the Act.

18. The extent to which a review of
award after it has attained finality is
permissible, was considered in great detail
by the Apex Court in the case of Naresh
Kumar (supra) and the Apex Court in
paragraph 8 and 9 of the said judgement
held as hereunder :-

8. 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. 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
immediate notice of any correction made in
the award to all the persons interested.

(3) Where any excess amount is
proved to have been paid to any person as
a result of the correction made under subsection (1), the excess amount so paid shall
be liable to be refunded and in the case of
any default or refusal to pay, the same may
be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.
(emphasis supplied)

9. 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
9 All. The Institute of Franciscan Clarist Sister of the most Blessed Sacrament Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 537
also clearly passed beyond such period of
six months.

19. There is no material difference
between Section 13A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of
1894) and Section 33 of the Act of 2013.
Section 33 of the Act of 2013, in our opinion,
is in pari materia of Section 13A of the Act of
1894 and hence, the principles propounded by
the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar
(supra) while examining the scope of Section
33 of the Act of 2013 shall squarely govern the
exercise of power by a Collector or the
competent authority u/s 33 of Act of 2013.
The three judgements which have been relied
upon by the learned counsel for the respondent
no. 4 in support of his contention that the
competent authority under the facts and
circumstances of the case was fully justified in
reviewing its original awards, are of no
assistance to him.

20. In none of the cases relied upon
by the learned counsel for the respondent
no. 4, the scope of power of correcting a
clerical/arithmetical mistake in an order,
was examined.

21. Although learned counsel for the
respondent no. 4 has argued that by the
impugned award, the original awards have
been corrected but the reading of the two
awards tells an entirely different story.
There is not even a whisper in the
impugned award to the effect that any
correction was made in the original awards
and in fact the competent authority in the
garb
of
making
clerical/arithmetical
correction in the original awards, has
passed a fresh award which is not
permissible under the law.

22. The impugned award having been
passed by the competent authority without
any jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and
are liable to be quashed.

23. The writ petitions succeed and are
accordingly
allowed.
The
impugned
awards dated 15.05.2018 (Annexure No. 5
to WRIT - C No. - 25323 of 2019,
Annexure No. 6 to WRIT - C Nos. - 22248
of 2019 and 23046 of 2019 and Annexure
No. 9 to WRIT - C No. 19215 of 2019), is
hereby set-aside.

24. However, liberty is given to the
respondent no. 4 to pursue the remedy
available to him u/s 3G (5) of the Act. The
arbitrator shall decide the application, if
any, moved by the respondent no. 4 before
him without being influenced by the
observations made hereinabove.

25. Needless to say that status quo
with regard to the possession of the plots in
question shall be maintained till the
arbitration proceedings are finalized.
----------
(2020)09ILR A537
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

WRIT - C No. 23232 of 2007

The Institute of the Franciscan Clarist
Sisters of the Most Blessed Sacrament
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.K. Gupta, Sri Jaideep Bedi, Sri J. Nagar,
Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Smt. Supriya Pratik Nagar

Counsel for the Respondents: