ORDER : 1. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10607 of 2023 challenges the proceedings of the second respondent in Roc.No.661/2019/A1 dated 28.12.2022 in respect of award No.9/2019 (pkg-1) (Additional-4) (Missing) and to consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation for Trees situated in S.Nos.320/5B, 608/1,2 & 616/1, Sirangadu Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District, based on the award of the second respondent dated 15.07.2022. 2. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.11052 & 11053 of 2023 challenges the impugned order of the first respondent in Roc.No. 667/2019/A1 dated 28.11.2022 in respect of award No.10/2019 (pkg-1) (Additional-6) and Roc.No.667/2019/A1 dated 28.11.2022 in respect of award No.10/2019 (pkg-1) (Additional-7) (Missing) respectively and to consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation for Red Sandal Trees situated in S.Nos 320/5B and 320/3B2, respectively, situated at Jambuthuraikottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk, based on the award of the first respondent dated 04.07.2022. 3. I have heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(MD)No.10607 of 2023 and the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(MD)Nos.11052 and 11053 of 2023 and Mr.P.Karthick, learned counsel for the fourth respondent in W.P.(MD)No. 10607 of 2023 and the third respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.11052 and 11053 of 2023. I have gone through the records and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The common question in all these writ petitions is as to whether when awards have already been passed by the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, whether the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, is vested with any power to re-determine value arrived at already and pass a fresh award. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mr.H.Arumugam, would submit that the lands belonging to the petitioners were valuable teak wood tree, eucalyptus trees, silver coconut trees and tamarind trees, etc., were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 . The Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, being the competent authority has fixed the compensation and passed awards dated 28.12.2022, 28.11.2022 and 28.11.2022 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner in all the writ petitions have accepted the compensation amount fixed by the competent authority. The Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, being the competent authority has fixed the compensation and passed awards dated 28.12.2022, 28.11.2022 and 28.11.2022 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner in all the writ petitions have accepted the compensation amount fixed by the competent authority. However, the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, has sought for a valuation report from the Forest Committee under the head of District Forest Officer, Dindigul, in respect of valuation of teak wood trees, eucalyptus trees, silver coconut trees and tamarind trees, etc.. The Forest Committee has fixed a value and forwarded a valuation report on 29.06.2022. The Deputy General Manager (T) and Project Director, has rejected the said report and subsequently, the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer has proceeded to obtain a reassessment report on 02.11.2022 and based on the said report, compensation has been refixed in proceedings which is under challenge writ petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioners have already challenged the award in their favour as provided under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act and the appeals are yet to be taken on file by the District Collector, the Arbitrator. The main ground of challenge to the second award passed by the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, is that once the awards had already been passed in the year 2019, the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, had no power to pass further award. He would further contend that if at all the authority was aggrieved by the award, the only course open was to challenge the same by resorting to Arbitration as available under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act. 7. Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, would also place reliance on the following decisions: (i) Mohinder Singh Vs. Sate of Punjab and Others, 2006 SC Online P&H 6 (ii) Surinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others , 2006 SCC Online P&H 11 (iii) G. Santha Bai Vs. Regional Officer, NHAI and others, 2019 SCC Online Mad. 29267 (iv) Usman Arif Vs. Project Director, NHAI, 2021 SCC Online Ker. 5296 (v) V alerial Sequeria and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, W.P. No. 10525 of 2021 (LA-RES) dated 26.09.2022 8. State of Punjab and others , 2006 SCC Online P&H 11 (iii) G. Santha Bai Vs. Regional Officer, NHAI and others, 2019 SCC Online Mad. 29267 (iv) Usman Arif Vs. Project Director, NHAI, 2021 SCC Online Ker. 5296 (v) V alerial Sequeria and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, W.P. No. 10525 of 2021 (LA-RES) dated 26.09.2022 8. Placing reliance on the above decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mr.H.Arumugam, would submit that once award is passed by the competent authority, except for carrying out any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the said award, no other modification is permissible. The learned counsel would therefore seek for the impugned orders being set aside. 9. Per contra, Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the Deputy General Manager (T) Project Director, would first and foremost contend that the first set of award passed was not a final award, but only a draft award. In this connection, he take me through circular No. 01/2017 dated 16.02.2017 with regard to the ascertainment of the market value. He would also refer to the Tamil Nadu Gazettee Notification dated 11.10.2017, where the competent authority for procedure for permission / intimation for felling of trees was District Forest Officer alone. He would also place reliance on the Manual Guidelines for Land Acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 , setting out a detailed procedure for acquisition of lands. 10. Mr.P.Karthick, learned counsel, would specifically draw my attention to the Role and Responsibility of the officer-in-charge of the Project Executing Agency under Clause 3.13.2, which permits the said officer-in-charge of the project, to bring any deviation from legal provisions / guidelines to the notice of the CALA for necessary correction at the draft stage of the Award, including correct positioning of the nature / category of land in the Award and also assist the CALA in correctness of mathematical calculations, and to ensure that compensation for Government land is not included in the Award. The learned counsel would further refer to the notification dated 18.01.2019 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The learned counsel would further refer to the notification dated 18.01.2019 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Referring to Clause 3 provided for manner of making requisite funds available to the competent authority, he would contend that the Executing Agency on taken rights by the competent authority before announcement of the award would have issued authorization limits in favour of the competent authority for withdrawal of the amount from such account as per requirement from time to time to enable disbursement of compensation to the land owners. 11. Therefore, referring to all the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the Deputy General Manager (T) and Project District, there is no irregularity in the procedure adopted by the respondents and only in line with the various provisions that have been relied upon herein above under permissible rules and guidelines alone, the draft awards were passed and thereafter, the final awards have been passed. He would therefore submit that the final awards are the only award which is finding and conclusive and therefore, the petitioners have not entitled for any relief in these writ petitions. 12. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on either side. 13. At the out set, I have to straight away mention that the first set of awards passed by the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, do not, any where mention that they are draft awards and not final awards. In fact, the competent authority, who was passed the first awards as well as the second awards, is the competent authority. The first set of awards in favour of the petitioners have been signed by the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer and I find from the said awards that copies have been marked to individuals concerned through the Special Tahsildar (LA) National Highway, Dindigul. What is the more significant is that in all these first set of awards, the Project Director has been requested to provide necessary fund for disbursement of compensation in accordance with the said awards. It is also clearly mentioned that the total compensation amount as decided in the said award will be paid to the land owners as soon as funds are provided by the National Highways Authority of India. It is also clearly mentioned that the total compensation amount as decided in the said award will be paid to the land owners as soon as funds are provided by the National Highways Authority of India. Therefore, I am unable to countenance the innovative arguments of the fourth respondent, Mr.P.Karthick, that the first set of awards are draft awards and not final awards. 14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in al the writ petitions, Mr.H.Arumugam, placing reliance on the various decisions of the Court laying down settled proposition of law that once the award is passed, there is no scope for revisiting vy the very same authority, unless it is necessitated for correction of arithmetical or clerical mistakes. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. 15. In fine, these Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned awards Roc.No.661/2019/A1 dated 28.12.2022 in respect of award No. 9/2019 (pkg-1) (Additional-4) (Missing), and Roc.No.667/2019/A1 dated 28.11.2022 in respect of award No.10/2019 (pkg-1) (Additional-6) and Roc.No.667/2019/A1 dated 28.11.2022 in respect of award No.10/2019 (pkg-1) (Additional-7) (Missing) respectively are set aside and the official respondents shall proceed to release compensation to the petitioner in all the writ petitions in terms of the first set of awards, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.