JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J. (Oral):- The petitioner is aggrieved by a proceeding initiated by the respondents under Section 13-A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, calling upon him to refund a sum of Rs.7,569.93 paid to him as compensation for 3 Deodar trees under the supplemetary award passed on 21.11.1987. 2. When the original award was passed and the compensation for the land was fixed, it was deserved that the assessment/valuation of 84 fruit trees and 3 non-fruit trees had not been received from the Horticulture/Forest Departments respectively and it was announced that the compensation for those trees would be paid later on through a supplementary award. It was only in pursuance of that reservation, the Land Acquisition Collector passed a supplementary award on 21.11.1987. In that award, it has been clearly stated that as per assessment reports received from Horticulture and Forest Departments, the compensation of 53 apple trees, one Nashpati, one Palti and three deodar trees was being awarded to the interest holders as mentioned there under. The petitioner is at Sr.No.10 and a sum of Rs.10.695.18 was awarded to him as compensation. There is no dispute that we are concerned in this case only with three deodar trees. 3. After payment of such compensation, a notice was issued by the respondents on 27.1.1988 under Section 13-A of Land Acquisition Act, informing the petitioner that there were no deodar trees on his land in Khasra No.53 7 1 at the time of construction of the road and, that, he had been wrongly paid an excess amount of Rs.7, 569.93. He was called upon to state why the said amount should not be recovered from him and on his failure to make such a statement, it would be presumed that there was a wrong payment which would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner sent a reply on 28-2-1988 pointing out that the possession of the land was taken prior to the year 1978 and at that time there were three Deodar trees of I-B category with seven feet diameter as evident from the proceedings of Land Acquisition Case No. 165 of 1978. The reports were also procured from the various agencies at that time and the existence of the trees was verified not only by the Patwari but also by the Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar concerned. The reports were also procured from the various agencies at that time and the existence of the trees was verified not only by the Patwari but also by the Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar concerned. The petitioner has also stated that the said fact was verified duly by the forest authorities. The petitioner also pointed out that there was no clerical or arithmetic mistake which would warrant the invoking of Section 13-A of the Act. 4. After that reply, the respondents sent a notice under Section 13- A (2) on 4th April, 1988 stating that the representation of the petitioner had been considered and it was found that he had received an excess amount of Rs.7,569.93 on account of a clerical error and that the supplementary award dated 21-11-1987 had been corrected accordingly. He was given a months time to deposit the amount in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector (1), Chhota Shimla-2, failing which he was informed that the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, would be requested to recover the amount as the arrears of land revenue. 5. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in challenge of such notice. The facts stated above arc sufficient to show that the alleged error in the supplementary award, cannot be considered to be a cerlical or arithmetic error Contemplated under Section 13-A of the Act. Sub - Section (I) of the Section reads as follows : "13-A Correction of clercial errors, etc. - (i) 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 13 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 cither 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 a representation in the matter." 6. Learned Advocate General places reliance on the expression "or error arising therein", and contends that even errors which are not clerical or arithmetical would be governed by the Section. We are unable to accept this contention. Learned Advocate General places reliance on the expression "or error arising therein", and contends that even errors which are not clerical or arithmetical would be governed by the Section. We are unable to accept this contention. In the context in which that expression is used by the legislature, it is very clear that it should be read ejusdem generis with the other expressions found in the Section, namely, clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award. It is also elementary principle that there is no inherent power of review with the Government official or any authority unless such a power is conferred by the statute. If the Land Acquisition Act had intended to confer such a power of review, the section would have contained a specific expression to that effect. On the other hand the Section contemplates only correction of clerical or arithmetic mistake which would be obvious on a reading of the award and it was only such errors which could be rectified by a proceeding under Section 13-A of the Act. It is needless to point out that the expression errors arising therein would only mean such errors, namely, errors in the spelling of certain words or typographical errors, which an obvious on the face of the award. 7. In this case it cannot by any stretch of imagination, be said that the assessment of the value of three Deodar trees and the payment of compensation to the petitioner on the basis of his ownership of those three trees, was based on any clerical or arithmetic error. Even the supplementary award does refer to the reports filed by the Holticulture/Forest Departments. It is only after receipt of such reports that the supplementary award has been passed. Hence it cannot be treated to be a clerical or arithmetic error or other similar error arising in the award. 8. In the circumstances, the case of the petitioner needs to be accepted and the writ petition is allowed. The notice issued by the respondents under Section 13-A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 4th April, 1988, is quashed. The respondents are also directed not to take any further proceedings as against the petitioner on the footing that the supplementary award contains, a clerical or arithmetic error. There is no order as to costs.