JUDGMENT The petitioner has sought the correction in the award dated 7 September 2015, as according to him the error in the award is of clericalrithmetical nature which can be corrected under the provisions of Section 33 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 33 reads as under: 33. Corrections to awards by Collector-(1) The Collector may at any time, but not later than six months from the date of award or where he has been required under the provisions of this Act to make a reference to the Authority under Section 64, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in either of the awards or errors arising therein either 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 representation in the matter. (2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of any correction made in this award so corrected 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 prescribed by the appropriate Government. 2. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the Collector is empowered to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in either of the awards or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or local authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in making the award the Collector has applied the correct principles for determination of compensation, but he has adopted the wrong method in determination of compensation which is said to be clerical in nature and has been sought to be corrected by the Collector himself. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, when we have examined the award we found that for adopting the correct methodology it requires an application of mind of the officer concerned, therefore the mistake as alleged cannot be said to be clerical rithmetical in nature. 4. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, when we have examined the award we found that for adopting the correct methodology it requires an application of mind of the officer concerned, therefore the mistake as alleged cannot be said to be clerical rithmetical in nature. 4. At this stage, we are informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that a reference has already been filed before the opposite party No.3, however, no such mistake has been pointed out therein, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty of this Court to raise such a plea as has been raised before this Court before the authority concerned. 5. Considering the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case the liberty is granted. It is clarified that we have not given any finding or observation on merit of the case. 6. Under these circumstances we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the relief as sought. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands dismissed.