Case Note & Summary
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged a corrigendum issued by the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956, which reduced the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner for the acquisition of his land for the widening of National Highway No. 6. The petitioner, who owned land in Avdhan village, Dhule, was initially awarded compensation of Rs. 11,88,30,748/- by an award dated 14-08-2017. However, the respondents deposited only Rs. 9,04,56,382/-, citing a corrigendum dated 02-01-2018 that applied a lower multiplier factor based on a subsequent government resolution dated 24-11-2017, reducing the multiplier from 2.00 to 1.50. The petitioner contended that the Competent Authority had no power to review or correct the award after it was passed, and that the procedure under Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 had not been followed. The main legal issue was whether the Competent Authority under the NH Act, 1956 possessed the power to correct an award, considering Section 33 read with Section 105 and the Fourth Schedule of the 2013 Act. The petitioner argued that Section 33 was not applicable to acquisitions under the NH Act in the absence of a notification under Section 105(3), and that the corrigendum amounted to an impermissible review without statutory authority. The respondents, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and a High Court decision in Umesh Board Paper Mills, contended that the provisions of the 2013 Act, including Section 33, applied to NH Act acquisitions by necessary implication and purposive interpretation. Alternatively, they argued that the Competent Authority had an inherent duty to maintain correct records and that Sections 23, 26, and 27 of the 2013 Act implicitly included the power to correct errors. The Court, after examining the statutory framework, held that the National Highways Act, 1956 as amended did not contain any provision permitting review or correction of an award after it was made. It noted that Section 33 of the 2013 Act was not automatically extended to acquisitions under the NH Act, as no notification under Section 105(3) had been issued by the Central Government. The Court rejected the argument that the power under Section 33 could be read into Sections 23, 26, and 27, finding each to be a distinct power. The comparison with Section 152 CPC and Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was held inapposite. The Court observed that even if an error occurred, no correction could be made without express statutory sanction. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, the corrigendum dated 02-01-2018 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to deposit the balance compensation amount in accordance with the original award dated 14-08-2017, thereby restoring the full compensation to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Review of Award - Power of Competent Authority to Correct Award - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sections 33, 105(3); National Highways Act, 1956, Sections 3A, 3D - The Competent Authority under the NH Act, 1956 issued a corrigendum reducing compensation after the award, claiming authority under Section 33 of the 2013 Act. The High Court held that Section 33 was not applicable to NH Act acquisitions as no notification under Section 105(3) had been made, and the NH Act does not contain any provision for review of awards. The corrigendum was quashed and the original award restored. (Paras 6, 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority while exercising powers for acquisition of land under the NH Act, 1956, has powers to correct an award, in light of Section 33, read with section 105 and the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013.
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Corrigendum/clarification dated 02-01-2018 quashed. Respondents directed to deposit/transfer the balance compensation amount as per the original award dated 14-08-2017.
Law Points
- Section 33 of Right to Fair Compensation Act
- 2013 not applicable to acquisitions under National Highways Act
- 1956 in absence of notification under Section 105(3)
- Competent Authority under National Highways Act cannot review its own award
- power to review must be expressly conferred by statute
- corrigendum reducing compensation amounts to impermissible review
- Section 152 CPC and Section 13A of Land Acquisition Act not comparable
- Section 26 and 27 of Act of 2013 do not confer power to correct errors after award
