LexNARESH KUMAR & ORS. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
NARESH KUMAR & ORS.
v.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
(Civil Appeal No.6638 of 2010)
OCTOBER 17, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 11 and 13A – Review of
award – Land of appellants was acquired – An award dated
01.10.2003 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector awarding
compensation of Rs.1,97,08,397/- in favour of the appellants –
Then on dated 14.07.2004, a review award was passed by the Land
Acquisition Collector, reducing the amount of compensation by
Rs.49,39,195/- on the ground that the compensation ought not to
have been awarded in respect of alleged illegal structures on the
land, which had wrongly been awarded by the award dated
01.10.2003 – Propriety of – Held: Not proper – There is no provision
under the L.A. Act for review of the award once passed u/s.11 of the
Act and had attained finality – The only provision is for correction
of clerical errors in the award, provided u/s.13A – In the instant
case, the compensation for structure on the land was deducted from
the award dated 01.10.2003 by the review award dated 14.07.2004
on the ground of the same being illegal structure, which actually
amounted to review of the award and cannot be said to be a
correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake – The question
whether the structure on the land of the appellants was legal or
illegal could only be decided after parties were given opportunity
to adduce evidence, which correction cannot be termed as correction
of any clerical or arithmetical mistake – Thus, review of the award
cannot be justified in law.
Review – Express power of – Held: It is settled law that the
power of Review can be exercised only when the statute provides
for the same – In the absence of any such provision in the concerned
statute, such power of Review cannot be exercised by the authority
concerned.
[2019] 15 S.C.R. 1043
1043
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Review Award could not have been passed
under Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is
meant only for correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake.
There is no other provision in the Act under which the said order
dated 14.07.2004 could have been passed. [Para 9] [1048-C]
2. In the present case, the compensation for the structure
on the land has been deducted from the Award dated 01.10.2003
by the Review Award dated 14.07.2004 on the ground of the same
being illegal structure, which actually amounts to Review of the
Award and cannot be said to be a correction of any clerical or
arithmetical mistake. The question whether the structure on
the land of the appellants was legal or illegal could only be decided
after the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence, which
correction cannot be termed as correction of any clerical or
arithmetical mistake. There being no provision under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for review of the Award, the passing of the
order dated 14.07.2004 in Review Award no.16/03-04 cannot be
justified in law. [Para 10] [1048-D-E]
3. Section 12 of the Act clearly provides that the Award of
the Collector shall become final on the same being filed in the
Collector’s office, of which the Collector shall give immediate
notice to the persons interested. From the facts of this case, it is
clear that the Award dated 01.10.2003, of which due notice had
been given to the appellants and part compensation had also been
paid to the appellants in pursuance thereto, had become final and
the same could not have been reviewed, and that too beyond a
period of six months, within which period only clerical or
arithmetical mistakes could have been corrected. [Para 11]
[1048-F-G]
Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath
Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437 : [2010] 10 SCR 971 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 10 SCR 971
relied on
Para 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6638 of
2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2010 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 381 of 2009
With
Civil Appeal No. 6637 of 2010.
Purushaindra Kaurav, Sr. Adv., K.K. Tyagi, P. Narasimhan, Advs.
for the Appellants.
S.W.A. Qadri, Sr. Adv., Ms. Manjula Gupta, Ms. Sunita Sharma,
Ms. Seema Bengani, Anas Zaid, B.V. Balram Das, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VINEET SARAN, J.
1. The short question involved in these appeals are, as to whetherExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.