ORDER VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. : – The present appeal is filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Pith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 27-6-2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 1420/2017 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners/appellants has been dismissed. 2. The appellants filed the writ petition seeking direction to the respondents that they be restrained to construct a canal on the agricultural field and further restrain to interfere with the peaceful possession. The appellants have also sought a direction for restoration of possession of their land. The grievance of the appellants was that the respondents were excavating the land belonging to the appellants without acquisition of land and without there being any notification under section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2013’). 3. It is contended that the possession of the land has been taken by the respondents in violation of section 11(1) of the Act, 2013, therefore, the appellants are entitled for restoration of possession with the same condition of the land. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others, (2013) 1 SCC 353 . 4. The respondents stated that the appellants and other land owners gave consent for sale of their land to the State Government for construction of canal. After obtaining their consent, a request was made to the Government for issuance of preliminary notification under section 11(1) of Act, 2013. Under the notification dated 14-11-2014, the appellants have also given consent letter for sale of their land by way of mutual consent. As per Schedule annexed with the notification the name of petitioner No. 1 is mentioned for sale of area and name of petitioner No. 2 is also mentioned in the said schedule for the land mentioned against their name. It is further stated that on 24-3-2017, respondent No. 2 issued preliminary information with respect of acquisition of land total area 152.064 rakba 12.454 of village Sandhara. All the land are being acquired on the basis of mutual consent as per circular of the State Government dated 12-11-2014. It is further stated that on 24-3-2017, respondent No. 2 issued preliminary information with respect of acquisition of land total area 152.064 rakba 12.454 of village Sandhara. All the land are being acquired on the basis of mutual consent as per circular of the State Government dated 12-11-2014. It is also submitted that a preliminary information was published in the local newspaper Patrika. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notice to all the land owners on 14-7-2017 for execution of the sale deed. The appellants disputed their signatures over the consent letter and submitted that they did not give consent for acquisition of land by mutual consent. It was also disputed that no award has been passed by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the State stated before this Court that an award has already been passed in the matter and compensation of amount of Rs. 5,63,200/- has been determined for payment to the petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 2,56,000/- to petitioner No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the State was directed to place copy of the award on record. Copy of the award dated 20-4-2017 has been placed on record along with the memo dated 21-11-2022. Along with the said award a list of the land owners has been annexed in which the name of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 are mentioned at serial Nos.49 and 51. He further submits that the compensation in pursuant to the said amount has not been accepted by the appellants so far and the aforesaid amount shall be paid to the appellants immediately forthwith subject to the fulfillment of the requirement by the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the aforesaid so called award is not an award in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013. He has further submitted that appellants have not been awarded the amount of interest as per law. 8. The present petition was filed for return of the land and restoration of possession. After passing of the award, the land vested with the respondents and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined the relief for restoration of the land and the possession. It would be open for the appellants to challenge the award in accordance with the law, if they are aggrieved with the award and compensation. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It would be open for the appellants to challenge the award in accordance with the law, if they are aggrieved with the award and compensation. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and others, (1996) 3 SCC 52 , the Apex Court ruled that in an intra-Court appeal the Appellate Court is a Court of Correction which corrects its own orders, in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. 10. With the aforesaid liberty this writ appeal is dismissed. However, the order of imposition of cost by the learned Single Judge is set aside.