Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a land acquisition award that recorded incorrect ownership and area. Dr. Prakash Kahnayalal Kankriya, the petitioner, had purchased land Gut No. 190/2, admeasuring 6H 62R from the western side, by registered sale deed dated 13.01.1999 executed by Bhausaheb Kotkar. After the purchase, the land was sub-divided into Gut No. 190/2/1 and Gut No. 190/2/2. The State initiated acquisition for construction of a Ring Road/Bypass Road for Ahilyanagar City. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 13.03.2008 and 19.02.2009 respectively. The award under Section 11 was passed on 30.04.2010, acquiring 63R of the petitioner's land but recording the name of his vendor instead of the petitioner. The petitioner's request for correction was initially turned down by the District Collector. He filed Writ Petition No. 10018 of 2022. By order dated 24.11.2025, the High Court set aside the Collector's rejection and directed the Collector to decide the application on merits within six months. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 Sub-Divisional Officer on 05.03.2026. Respondent No.2 directed reports from the Executive Engineer and Deputy Superintendent of Land Records. The Executive Engineer reported on 06.04.2026 that the petitioner had neither withdrawn compensation nor filed for enhancement. The Deputy Superintendent of Land Records submitted a report on 12.03.2026 giving nod for correction in name and area. Despite these reports, respondent No.2 took no action, leading to the present writ petition. The State raised an objection on maintainability, contending that there was no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to correct the award and that the petitioner could avail other remedies. The High Court rejected this objection, relying on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, [2023 SCC Online SC 95], which explained that availability of an alternative remedy does not render a writ petition not maintainable and that entertainability is discretionary. The Court found an apparent mistake in the award, confirmed by the reports, and concluded that the petitioner was innocent and the mistake was due to the authorities. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C' and directed respondent No.2 Sub-Divisional Officer to carry out correction of the award dated 30.04.2010 within four weeks from receipt of the order. Rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability vs Entertainability - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The High Court held that mere availability of an alternative remedy under a statute does not operate as an absolute bar to maintainability of a writ petition, and entertainability is discretionary. In the peculiar facts, the petitioner was innocent and the mistake in recording the vendor's name and area in the award was attributable to the authorities, warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction despite absence of specific provision in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for correction of award. Held that the writ petition is maintainable and entertainable (Paras 10-13). B) Land Acquisition - Correction of Award - Erroneous Recording of Owner Name and Acquired Area - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 6, 11, 13A - The award dated 30.04.2010 recorded the vendor's name instead of the petitioner and acquired 63R instead of 23R from Gut No.190/2; reports of Executive Engineer and Deputy Superintendent of Land Record confirmed no withdrawal of compensation and supported correction in name and area. The High Court directed respondent No.2 Sub-Divisional Officer to carry out correction of the award within four weeks. Held that the apparent mistake in the award should be corrected to reflect the true owner and actual area acquired (Paras 5-8, 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct correction of a Land Acquisition Award dated 30.04.2010 despite the absence of a specific provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the availability of an alternative remedy; and whether respondent No.2 Sub-Divisional Officer should be directed to correct the award by reducing the acquired area from 63R to 23R and recording the petitioner's name instead of the vendor's name.
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'B' and 'C'. Respondent No.2/Sub-Divisional Officer, District Ahilyanagar directed to carry out correction of Award dated 30.04.2010 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Article 226 jurisdiction is extraordinary
- equitable and discretionary
- availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to maintainability of a writ petition
- entertainability is distinct from maintainability and lies within the discretion of the High Court
- writ can be issued to correct an apparent mistake in a land acquisition award where the petitioner is innocent and the mistake is attributable to the authorities
- refusal to correct the award would perpetuate injustice despite confirmed reports of the actual area and ownership
