JUDGMENT : Kauser Edappagath, J. Exts.P6(a), P6(b) orders and Ext.P7 award passed by the 3rd respondent are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners are siblings. Their properties were acquired for widening the national highway. The 3rd respondent passed Ext.P5 award in favour of the petitioners under Section 3G (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and awarded compensation. Subsequent to the passing of Ext.P5 award, the 3rd respondent initiated enquiry as to the nature of the pathway of the properties of the petitioners. After such an enquiry, which was conducted without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the nature of the pathway was determined to be 'thodu puramboke'. Consequently, the 3rd respondent issued Exts.P6(a) and P6(b) orders reducing the compensation already awarded as per Ext.P5. Consequent to Ext. P6(b), a revised award as Ext.P7 was issued by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd petitioner. It is challenging Exts.P6(a), P6(b) and P7, this writ petition has been filed. 3. I have heard Sri. Thareeq Anver K, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader and Sri. B.G. Bidan Chandran, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the 3rd respondent in passing Exts.P6(a) and P6(b) reviewing Ext.P5 order is impermissible under law. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P6(a) and P6(b), the remedy open to them is to approach the District Collector/Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the Act. 5. The power and authority of the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) have been enumerated in the Act. As per Section 3G of the Act, where any land is acquired under the Act, there shall be paid an amount to be determined by the CALA. The said authority is empowered and authorised to make such determination with respect to the value of the acquired land in terms of Section 3G (7) of the Act. Section 3G (5) provides that if either of the parties is dissatisfied with the amount so arrived at by the CALA, they can seek it to be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. Section 3G (5) provides that if either of the parties is dissatisfied with the amount so arrived at by the CALA, they can seek it to be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. Thus, upon the CALA determining the amount under Section 3G of the Act and passing the award, it becomes functus officio and cannot, thereafter, modify the award. The CALA has not been vested with jurisdiction to review its own orders. The question whether CALA can review or modify the award issued by it earlier came up for consideration before a Single Bench of this Court in Usman Arif Vs. National Highway Authority of India ( 2022 (1) KLT 35 ), wherein it was held that, upon the CALA determining the amount under Section 3G of the Act and issuing the resultant Award, it is rendered functus officio and cannot, thereafter, assume any further statutory jurisdiction with respect to the same. It was further held that the CALA can, at best, correct patent typographical or clerical errors but is proscribed from dealing with the published award on its merits, in any manner thereafter. Therefore, by no means can CALA modify its earlier award. Since Exts.P6(a) and P6(b) were passed by the 3rd respondent without jurisdiction, they as well as consequential Ext. P7 revised award cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Exts.P6(a), P6(b) and P7 are set aside. The writ petition is allowed.