Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 225 (UTT)

Murari Lal v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-05-21

ALOK SINGH

body2014
Judgment Alok Singh, J. In all these three writ petitions identical questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The lands of the present petitioners were acquired and award was passed on 18.2.2013. Thereafter, citations were issued against the petitioners on 20.1.2006 for recovery of alleged excess amount paid to the petitioners under the award. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed Writ Petitions being Writ Petition No. 241 (M/B) of 2006 (Murlidhar and twenty three others v. Tehsildar, Tehsil Pratap Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal and others). 3. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 2.8.2006, observing therein that once the award is made and disbursement is made, it is not open for the authorities to recover the amount without getting the award corrected. Division Bench of this Court was further pleased to quash the citations against the petitioners with liberty to the authorities to correct the award in accordance with law. 4. After the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 2.8.2006, learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, vide order dated 20.11.2006 made corrections in the award, thereby reducing the interest at the rate of 9 per cent from 1.10.2001 to 30.9.2002 and at the rate of 15 % from 1.10.2002 to 18.2.2003, instead of 24 % per annum. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have preferred present writ petitions. 5. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since initially the award was passed on 18.2.2003, therefore, in view of Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act, mistake ought to have been corrected within six months from the date of award and after expiry of period of six months award ought not to have been corrected. 7. Section 13-A of the Act reads as under :- “[13A. Correction of clerical errors, etc. 7. Section 13-A 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 sub-section (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.] 8. As per Section 13-A, the Collector either at the time of making reference under Section 18 of the Act or within six months from the date of the award may 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. 9. In the case in hand, original award was passed on 18.2.2003. However, without making correction therein, realizing the mistake of making payment of interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum instead of 9 per cent & 15 per cent, citations were issued for recovery of the excess amount from the petitioners on 20.1.2006. 10. While quashing the citations, Division Bench of this Court has clearly observed that citations ought not to have been issued without making correction in the award and liberty was given to the authorities to carry out the correction in the award in accordance with law. 11. As per the mandate of Section 13-A of the Act, correction can be carried out within six months from the date of award or at the time of making reference under Section 18. 11. As per the mandate of Section 13-A of the Act, correction can be carried out within six months from the date of award or at the time of making reference under Section 18. After six months, learned Collector has absolutely no jurisdiction to carry out any correction in the award. 12. A careful perusal of the judgment dated 2.8.2006 would reveal that Division Bench of this Court was pleased to give liberty to the authorities to carry out the correction in the award in accordance with law. Law does not permit any correction in the award after six months, therefore, it was not open to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to carryout the correction. 13. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are hereby quashed. 14. Any amount recovered from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order, shall be refunded to the petitioners within six weeks from today failing which petitioners shall be paid interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of recovery till the date actual payment is made in favour of the petitioners. 15. Let a copy of this order be placed in connected writ petitions too.