PALOK BASU, J. ( 1 ) BEFORE proceeding with the matter on merits, it may be observed at the outset that the petitioner who is engaged in one of the most important defence activity of the nation has been compulsively forced to enter into the instant litigation through these six writ petitions emanating through wholly illegal, unsound and awesome proceedings initiated admittedly after seven years of the award under the Land Acquisition Act became final. The Court desires that in such matters, the District Magistrate himself should examine the legal provisions and then only make up his mind as to whether or not reopening by whatever method of land acquisition proceedings is needed. ( 2 ) IN factual basis, the Court has made the Writ Petition No. 28954 of 2000 as a leading one and the other five writ petitions shall be governed by this judgment and wherever necessary, the dates and names will aptly stand automatically substituted. The controversy is one and the same. The points argued are also similar, therefore, some of the dates which are different should not unnecessarily be brought in because the conclusion in each of petitions also is to be the same. ( 3 ) STILL further, it should be pointed out that the S. L. A. Os. working under the Land Acquisition act are to carry out the provisions contained in that Act while determining compensation or taking any other steps in land acquisition proceedings. By and large, outside authorities may not be permitted to guide the activities of the S. L. A. Os. in matters which have already become final long ago, by making conceited order here and there. ( 4 ) IN Narora outside district Bulandshahr in the State of U. P. , the petitioner has established and is running a Nuclear Power Project. Big area of the land was required and has been acquired by the notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act (for short the act ). It is again admitted that even though the award was passed by the S. L. A. O. on 4. 2. 1989, yet six "supplementary awards" or "supplementary Judgments" have been passed on 31. 3. 2000 by the S. L. A. O. requiring the petitioner to deposit further compensation held payable as solatium at the rate of 30% and additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum. On 6. 4. 2. 1989, yet six "supplementary awards" or "supplementary Judgments" have been passed on 31. 3. 2000 by the S. L. A. O. requiring the petitioner to deposit further compensation held payable as solatium at the rate of 30% and additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum. On 6. 4. 2000, the S. L. A. O. issued a demand notice upon which the Collector Bulandshahr has issued a recovery notice on 23. 5. 2000, which have been challenged in each of these petitions filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 5 ) SRI V. K. S. Chaudhary, senior advocate assisted by Sri R. S. Maurya and Sri R. K. Singh for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Saxena assisted by Sri P. K. Singhal and Smt. Archana Srivastava have been heard at extensive length and the whole record has been examined. ( 6 ) WHEN the petitions were filed on 7. 7. 2000, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why the petition be not admitted/allowed and counter-affidavit was called which has been filed by the State on behalf of the opposite parties, to which rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed in each case. As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitions are being disposed, of finally at the admission stage. ( 7 ) ON 14. 11. 1987, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published for acquisition of 348 bighas, 9 biswas and 11 biswansis land in village Bijau, Pargana Dibai, district Bulandshahr which was followed by notification under Section 6 issued on 20. 1. 1988. After due formalities, an award was passed on 4. 2. 1989 when the petitioner has taken possession of the entire land notified as above. At this stage, a very important averment existing in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition should be put in so that the discussion following thereafter, is well understood. "7. That the U. P. Government had also drawn a rehabilitation scheme at the expense of the corporation. For that purpose, the land was purchased at Narora town and it was developed in the shape of a residential colony, residential plots of one biswa and therein has been given to each family (consisting of husband and wife and minor children, the adult married issues getting additional 1 biswa each), free of cost. (The value of this land was about Rs. (The value of this land was about Rs. 200 per sq. m. when it was given ). Apart from land for residence for each family (which was much more than what the house holders previously had), the affected persons were also permitted to take away their building material (Malba) from the acquired land. In view of this, the then Special Land acquisition Officer had not awarded solatium and additional interest on the compensation for the constructions and improvements. In fact in the circumstances, there was no question of payment of any extra compensation for building material. " ( 8 ) IT is admitted that all the tenure-holders have taken compensation between months of March and April, 1989, without lodging any protest whatsoever while receiving the said compensation from the S. L. A. O. None of the tenure-holders applied for any reference nor any one of them challenged the said award in any manner whatsoever. Further more, each one of the displaced person, as shown in the averments quoted above, took possession of the individual plots earmarked for them in the scheme and, therefore, rehabilitated themselves in those plots. ( 9 ) COPY of the award has been filed as Annexure-4 to each of the writ petitions. On the very first page of each award through item No. 14, it is indicated clearly that a sum of Rs. 28,37,226. 68 paise has been paid by way of solatium at the rate of 30%. At this stage, it should be pointed out that admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 10. 5 crores for payment of compensation as early as in the year 1987 in the office of the Collector, Bulandshahr. Item no. 16 indicates the award of additional compensation at the rate of 10% per year, which amounted to Rs. 13,89,852. 30 paise. It further indicates through Item No. 18 that a sum of Rs. 16,25,050. 22 paise was deducted as expenses for the proceedings taken for the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act. ( 10 ) THE said award further indicates that additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was also paid which amount has been noted as Rs. 13,89,852. 30 paise. Over and above, a sum of Rs. 1,66,856. ( 10 ) THE said award further indicates that additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was also paid which amount has been noted as Rs. 13,89,852. 30 paise. Over and above, a sum of Rs. 1,66,856. 80 paise was also paid being 40 times of the annual land revenue. This is how the figure of expenses to the tune of Rs. 16,25,050. 22 paise was calculated and paid by the petitioner. From the details noted above and the specific averments of the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it is obvious that each and every tenure-holder who had his house or building or hut or any construction worth the name, was permitted to remove those constructions from the land acquired which he or they did. As already stated above, separate land was allotted to them as rehabilitation measure by the petitioner. Nothing, therefore, remained on the land acquired in the shape of building and no further or additional compensation for any building whatsoever was to be paid. Solatium as also additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum were paid to all the tenure-holders. ( 11 ) IT is very seriously contended by Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary that no villager had any complaint whatsoever against the compensation awarded inasmuch as the award became final and now 11 years and in the year 1995 more than 6 or 7 years have elapsed when some surreptitious attempt has been made to use the money of the petitioner lying in deposit with the District Offices at bulandshahar which has been shown in the final account dated 7. 7. 1992 submitted by the said office, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, indicating Rs. 88,98,052. 25 paise to be refundable to the petitioner. Sri Chaudhary, therefore, argued that an attempt has been made so that the aforesaid amount is not to be paid immediately to the petitioner. This part of the argument of Sri Chaudhary may or may not be correct but the factual position that the petitioners balance amount determined at the district level to the tune of Rs. 88,98,052. 25 paise has yet not been refunded to the petitioner, is correct and not denied by the respondents. This part of the argument of Sri Chaudhary may or may not be correct but the factual position that the petitioners balance amount determined at the district level to the tune of Rs. 88,98,052. 25 paise has yet not been refunded to the petitioner, is correct and not denied by the respondents. ( 12 ) THE supplementary award or supplementary judgment by whatever name it be called, is total misnomer. It is not known under what provision, such supplementary award or supplementary judgment can be passed. It also passes ones comprehension as to how the S. L. A. O. can, sitting on 31. 3. 2000 as the S. L. A. O. , Bulandshahr, could undo final awards between the parties, inspite of having specifically held in the said order that neither there was any clerical mistake nor there was any arithmetical error. Once these two methods of correcting the award is admittedly non-existent, the only alternative was not to proceed with the matter at all because law does not permit such an action on the part of the S. L. A. O. But instead, the S. L. A. O. has said in the impugned awards that the tenure-holders are entitled to 30% solatium on the value of the buildings and 12% additional is also payable and in view of the directions of the State government contained in letter No. 3206/1-12-96-Ra-13 dated 6. 12. 1996, office note dated 3. 7. 1999, D. G. Cs opinion dated 7. 8. 1999, Supreme Courts judgment dated 1. 1. 1996 and the guide-lines of the State Government sent to him on 18. 3. 2000, those awards were being passed. Indeed, what an attempt to escape the responsibility of passing wrong orders/awards. ( 13 ) THE Supreme Courts judgment as noted in the award describes it being dated 1. 1. 1996, which is apparently wrong, its date should be 6. 5. 1996 being the celebrated decision of the supreme Court in the case of Bai Shakriben (dead) by Natwar Melsingh and others v. Special land Acquisition Officer and another, (1996) 4 SCC 533 . The said Ruling puts a complete bar on altering an award which has become final. 1. 1996, which is apparently wrong, its date should be 6. 5. 1996 being the celebrated decision of the supreme Court in the case of Bai Shakriben (dead) by Natwar Melsingh and others v. Special land Acquisition Officer and another, (1996) 4 SCC 533 . The said Ruling puts a complete bar on altering an award which has become final. It is specifically held that if enhanced interest and additional solatium has not been paid through the original award, it cannot be subsequently awarded to the landowner in the garb of holding that to be a clerical error or an arithmetical error. The relevant portion of the Supreme Courts judgment is quoted below for ready reference : "we feel that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. It would have been appropriate for the claimants to have gone in appeal and have the matter corrected, but unfortunately they did not claim of the appellate remedy and allowed the decree to become final. The omission to award additional amounts under Section 23 (1a), enhanced interest under Section 28 and solatium under Section 23 (2) are not clerical or arithmetical mistake crept in the award passed by the reference court but amounts to non-award. Under those circumstances, the reference court was clearly in error in entertaining the application for amendment of the decree and is devoid of power and jurisdiction to award the amounts under Sections 23 (2), 23 (1a) and 28 of the Act. " The word "not" between the words did and, claim has not been printed in the cited decision but in the correct copy of the judgment as printed in JT 1996 (5) SC 597, the said word "not" is very much printed. Therefore, the S. L. A. O. has misread the said judgment as quoted by him in the supplementary award (Anupurak Abhinimay) wholly ignoring the ratio of the Apex Court and has drawn an inference which is contrary to the decision. ( 14 ) IT is remarkable that the S. L. A. O. then sought support from the opinion of the D. G. C. The counsels opinion can never be made the basis of an award. ( 14 ) IT is remarkable that the S. L. A. O. then sought support from the opinion of the D. G. C. The counsels opinion can never be made the basis of an award. The Court is simply astounded to see such things being put black and white as the opinion of the D. G. C. being referred to as a reason for passing of the said supplementary award without saying a word of his own regarding correctness or justifiability of passing the award. ( 15 ) THE office note dated 3. 7. 1999 and the alleged Government Order dated 6. 12. 1996 are again wholly out of the context. These two documents and the D. G. Cs opinion have been filed by the state as part of the counter-affidavit being Annexure-C. A. 1 (D. G. C. opinion), Annexure-C. A. 3 (G. O. dated 6. 12. 1996 ). ( 16 ) COMING now to the order dated 18. 3. 2000, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4/12 to the counter-affidavit filed by the State, it contains the opinion of the Special Secretary charanjit Singh Buxi which says that no tenure-holder is entitled to obtain interest on the solatium amount nor is he entitled to have additional compensation for the land under Section 23 (2) of the Act. It is astonishing to find that the said opinion had been made the basis for passing of the supplementary award by the S. L. A. O. If nothing, the said G. O. was interpretable only as a guideline to stop such payment being claimed by the tenure-holders. ( 17 ) ONCE these items are removed from the supplementary award of the S. L. A. O. , it is difficult to find any basis for the aforesaid supplementary award. However, the strenuous exercise made by sri R. K. Saxena, learned standing counsel to lend support and justification for the award has now to be examined. Simultaneously two other objections of Sri Saxena, first, the tenure-holders must have been impleaded as Opp. parties in the writ petition and second, no writ petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner because no such remedy is available against the award passed under Section 12 of the Act, have also to be dealt with. ( 18 ) RELIANCE by Sri Saxena was placed on what is contained in Annexure-1/2. parties in the writ petition and second, no writ petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner because no such remedy is available against the award passed under Section 12 of the Act, have also to be dealt with. ( 18 ) RELIANCE by Sri Saxena was placed on what is contained in Annexure-1/2. This appears to be a typed paper containing typed names of 117 persons with L. T. Is. without indicating whose l. T. Is. these were. This document is said to have been forwarded to the District Magistrate, bulandshahr by the Deputy Secretary, State of U. P. through his letter dated 15. 12. 1995 (Annexure-1/1 to the counter-affidavit ). None of the 117 persons have signed the application and as stated above, it is not known as to who is the author of the three L. T. Is. The next document is 1/7 to the said counter-affidavit. This purports to be an application dated 6. 11. 1995 addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer Bulandshahr. There are 12 typed names and 2 L. T. Is. Apart from this, names of 6 persons are noted who are said to be represented through Shri Balwant sharma, advocate. The alleged vakalatnama, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1/8 has its own story to tell. Details of none of the persons whose L. T. Is. exists is to be found in the said vakalatnama. There is no endorsement at the back of it indicating any acceptance by a lawyer. Assuming that the said omission may be clerical, the vakalatnama consists only several similar looking L. T. I. and no other person has put in signature anywhere. The writing Ni. A. (i. e. Nishani angutha) is in the same hand writing as are the hand writing on the application dated 6. 11. 1995 which is said to have been moved through advocate Balwant Sharma. The only endorsement on this application appears to be on the left hand margin saying that, "kripya aavashyak karwahi karen" (necessary steps be taken ). There is an initial type writing below which dated 27. 11. exists. D. G. Cs. opinion, as noted above is Annexure-1/9 to the counter-affidavit. For obvious reasons, the contents though placed by Shri Saxena, are omitted from being discussed here. There is an initial type writing below which dated 27. 11. exists. D. G. Cs. opinion, as noted above is Annexure-1/9 to the counter-affidavit. For obvious reasons, the contents though placed by Shri Saxena, are omitted from being discussed here. Sri saxena then placed reliance on the document said to be a letter from the District Magistrate, bulandshahr addressed to the Under Secretary, State of U. P. , Lucknow. It carries the view that the solatium was not paid for the costs of the building and additional compensation at the rate of 12% to the land owners was also not paid. The opinion of the D. G. C. Bulandshahr which is based upon accepting as true the allegations mentioned in the notice under Section 80 served on the State, Additional Compensation and solatium as required by Section 23 (1) (a) and 23 (2)read with Section 28 of the Act, was made the basis for the said view. ( 19 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid document, Sri R. K. Saxena argued that it was a matter, which originated from the tenure-holders who applied direct to the State Government for the necessary orders so that they could get their legitimate right, i. e. , solatium and additional compensation. As stated above, details of all the persons who were affected by the notification are non existent in any of these applications. Further more, it is admitted case of the parties that the said claim of additional compensation from solatium for the building was to be applicable only to those tenure- holders who in fact had their building on the acquired land. Although parties agree that these persons were not many and at this stage, there is absolutely no material to indicate as to who are the persons recorded as tenure-holders of their houses on the acquired land, therefore, the argument of Sri Saxena that all those persons should have been made a party in this writ petition is without any basis whatsoever. ( 20 ) COMING to the next limb of the arguments of Sri Saxena on behalf of the respondents, it is admitted that the original award itself indicates 12% additional payment of compensation was already made to the tenure-holder, therefore, Sri Saxena couched his argument as if the supplementary award should be upheld because it deals with the payment of solatium on the value of the building. This attempt on the part of Sri Saxena has to be nipped in the bud. ( 21 ) THE attention of the Court was drawn by Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary to the very application on which reliance has been placed by Sri Saxena, i. e. , Annexure-1/2 to the counter-affidavit. The said application narrates that the 120 applicants were claiming through that application 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation for, "sampatti malwa key pratikar" (property-building materials compensation ). The argument of Sri Chaudhary proceeded that once the building materials had been permitted to be removed and each of the persons had in fact removed those building materials after acquisition was complete, there was absolutely no occasion for making any claim whatsoever for those building materials inasmuch as full compensation solatium and the additional compensation stood paid squarely to each and every tenure-holder. In view of the discussion, there is absolutely no material existing on the record on the basis of which the s. L. A. O. could have passed the aforesaid supplementary award. ( 22 ) SRI Saxena lastly wanted to take shelter behind the alleged meeting which was held between the officers of the petitioner Corporation on the one hand and the District Magistrate with his officials on the other hand. In this connection, reliance was placed on the meeting minutes, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4/6 of the aforesaid counter-affidavit. The entire minutes as recorded after the meeting dated 3. 7. 1999 is quoted below for the ready reference : "it was pointed out by N. P. C. I. L. that N. A. P. S. had received demand for solatium on structures acquired on land during the acquisition in the year 1989. The solatium on structures was not included in the award in the year 1989 and its demand was subsequently raised in the year 1996. When N. A. P. S. had questioned this belated demand the district officials had replied that it could be considered as clerical mistake. It was explained by N. P. C. I. L. in the meeting that as per Land acquisition Act, an error in calculation only could be termed as clerical error. The exclusion of solatium on structures for five villages could not be termed as clerical error. It was explained by N. P. C. I. L. in the meeting that as per Land acquisition Act, an error in calculation only could be termed as clerical error. The exclusion of solatium on structures for five villages could not be termed as clerical error. (1) It was pointed out by N. P. C. I. L. that as per Land Acquisition Act, the mistake in the award can be corrected within a period of six months only. It was discussed and agreed that as per Land acquisition Act, the payment of solatium on land and structures is a statutory requirement. The s. L. A. Os. office officials produced a letter from anu Sachiv U. P. Government dated 6. 12. 1996 citing cases in which ruling by High Court of Uttar Pradesh that the payment of solatium and interest was statutory requirement. The anu Sachiv inferred in the letter that this mistake can be corrected anytime by issuing supplementary award. (2) So far N. P. C. I. L. has received letters from District Magistrates office asking N. A. P. S. to deposit the money of about Rs. 1. 75 crores for disbursing against the solatium on structures and interest thereon for the delay in payment. No award on this account has been issued so far. It was therefore, requested by N. P. C. I. L. that a supplementary award citing reasons for the delay be issued. (3) It was pointed out by State Government officials that as per the rules, the award could be raised only after money for the compensation is deposited with the S. L. A. Os. office. This point was discussed in detail and it was decided that this requirement could be waived off as n. P. C. I. L. has initially deposited Rs. 10. 5 crores for the disbursement of the compensation under the same scheme. " Sri Saxena wanted to interpret the contents of the aforesaid minutes as supporting his claim that there was an assurance on the part of the officials of the petitioner Corporation that they will be paying the additional compensation claimed for the alleged building materials. 10. 5 crores for the disbursement of the compensation under the same scheme. " Sri Saxena wanted to interpret the contents of the aforesaid minutes as supporting his claim that there was an assurance on the part of the officials of the petitioner Corporation that they will be paying the additional compensation claimed for the alleged building materials. Sri Choudhary refuted the said argument with reference to various lines existing in the aforesaid minutes which go to indicate that the petitioners officials had not only disagreed to make payment of any additional compensation, they had raised specific objection about the method which was being applied by the District Magistrate and the other officials which, according to Sri Chaudhary amounted to coercing the said officers to make payment of additional compensation as compulsive levy on them. ( 23 ) GIVING anxious consideration to the aforesaid arguments, the conclusion is irresistible that the officers of the Corporation had raised specific objection that award which has become final could not be altered ; compensation, solatium and additional compensation had all been paid ; there was no objection from any tenure-holder and, therefore, the officials of the petitioner corporation have no liability to pay additional compensation. ( 24 ) AS already noted above, the question of paying 12% additional compensation never arose because it already stood paid under the award originally passed. Similarly the question of paying any compensation for building material also did not arise, as it is not permissible under the law. Even if it is held that such material is included within the expression land for the claim, each one of the lease holder was permitted to remove the structure which they did whereafter they were offered one plot each for rehabilitation. Thus no question of paying solatium at the rate of 30% on value of building material arises in the instant case. ( 25 ) IN this connection, it is to be noted here that Section 12 of the Act says that an award made by the S. L. A. O. is final and conclusive evidence on value of land. Apart from other things, section 13a provides only six months for correcting the mistake if they are clerical or arithmetical in nature. ( 25 ) IN this connection, it is to be noted here that Section 12 of the Act says that an award made by the S. L. A. O. is final and conclusive evidence on value of land. Apart from other things, section 13a provides only six months for correcting the mistake if they are clerical or arithmetical in nature. The S. L. A. O. himself has said that the type of claim which he was dealing with in the instant case, was neither clerical error nor arithmetical error. Consequently, it is rightly argued by the petitioners counsel that the aforesaid supplementary award is without any jurisdiction whatsoever. It is not denied that Section 18 of the Act places 6 months limitation for making reference vide proviso (a) and (b) thereof. Since the original award was dated 4. 2. 1989, the passing of the supplementary award on 31. 3. 2000 is barred by all the provisions of the Act. Similarly, Section 31 (2) prohibits any other person challenging the award and payment of compensation who may have received the compensation amount without protest. They had also accepted plots of land as a rehabilitation scheme and they had neither preferred any appeal nor any objection within 6 months period. In this case, the order dated 31. 3. 2000 itself does not speak a word about any tenure-holder having appeared before the S. L. A. O. for making any application or objection or prayer for getting the award amended or another award passed or a second award obtained. ( 26 ) IN these circumstances, all the supplementary awards are in the teeth of all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The said awards of the S. L. A. O. is based on the four materials which have to be discarded for the reasons discussed above and as such are liable to be thrown out. ( 27 ) THE last point now remains to be considered is whether the petitioners writ petition is maintainable because an objection to that effect has been raised by Sri R. K. Saxena. The petitioners counsel Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary said that an officer is entitled to pass a wrong order as also a right order. So long as the seal of the officer goes with a wrong order without jurisdiction, it must be corrected by the Court. The argument of Mr. The petitioners counsel Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary said that an officer is entitled to pass a wrong order as also a right order. So long as the seal of the officer goes with a wrong order without jurisdiction, it must be corrected by the Court. The argument of Mr. Chaudhary that the said awards are without jurisdiction and are wholly illegal is absolutely correct. Consequently, the writ petition is maintainable and it does not suffer from any infirmity. ( 28 ) THE impugned order/supplementary judgment/supplementary award dated 31. 3. 2000 passed by Sri Ved Prakash Singh, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bulandshahr is devoid of any merits and is illegal. ( 29 ) COST should have been awarded to the petitioner but Shri R. K. Saxena has defended the s. L. A. O. with all his might and may be that these awards may not have been passed, had the directions not come from above. ( 30 ) IN the result, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The order / supplementary award/ supplementary judgment dated 31. 3. 2000 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, bulandshahr are quashed in each of the writ petitions. Recovery proceedings and the demand notice referred to above are quashed. ( 31 ) A copy of this order be furnished within two weeks to Sri Saxena for its onward transmission to the Chief Secretary, U. P. Government who will take necessary steps within two months instructing S. L. A. Os. and Collectors to restrain from passing such supplementary awards. ( 32 ) PARTIES will bear their costs.