Karnataka High Court
Gogga Sidramiah vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9 July, 2018
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1 WP No.102709/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH R
DATED THIS THE 12 t h DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION No.102709 of 2018 [LA-RES]
BETWEEN:
GOGGA SIDRAMIAH
S/O. LATE GOGGA MARISWAMAIAH,
AGE:70 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
29/197, "AMARESH KRUPA",
M J NAGAR, HOSAPETE-583201,
DIST:BALLARI.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. F V PATIL ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
FIRST FLOOR, DHARA MAHAL,
U B HILL 5TH CROSS,
(ANKOLA HUBLI HOSPET)
NH-63, DHARWAD,
TQ & DIST:DHARWAD.
2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
(ANKOLA-HUBLI-HOSPET) NH-63,
II CROSS, SATTUR COLONY,
2 WP No.102709/2018
VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD,
TQ & DIST:DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SMT.VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO:
A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.02.2018
Brg.NO.SLAO/NHAI/63/CR-16/2016-17 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-"J".
B) ALTERNATIVELY QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD
PROCEEDINGS DATED:14.06.2016 Brg.No.SLAO/NH-
63/LAQ/CR-16/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-"E"
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 SO FAR IT RELATES
TO THE ACQUIRED LAND OF THE PETITIONER TO AN
EXTENT OF 708 SQUARE METERS OUT OF 5 ACRES
16 GUNTAS IN Sy.NO.56/2 SITUATED AT
BEVANIHALLI VILLAGE, TQ:KOPPAL, DIST:KOPPAL.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner, the erstwhile owner of the land measuring 5 Acres 16 Guntas in Sy.No.56/2 of Bevinahalli village, Koppal Taluk is before this Court challenging the order dated 24.02.2018 made by respondent No.1-Special Land Acquisition Officer at 3 WP No.102709/2018 Annexure 'J' whereby his request for passing of a supplementary award is rejected.
2. The learned AGA Sri.Ravi Hosamani accepts notice for respondent No.1
3. The petitioner contends that the land in question was converted to industrial user from agricultural user vide conversion order dated 05.06.2010 made by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, preceding the initiation of acquisition proceedings.
4. The petitioner's land to the extent of 708 sq.mtr. came to be acquired for the benefit of respondent No.2 herein vide Preliminary Notification dated 26.12.2014 followed by the award dated 14.06.2016, a copy of which is at Annexure 'E'.
5. The short grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the conversion of the land, the entries in 4 WP No.102709/2018 the revenue records were mutated showing that the land is converted for industrial user. However, the 1 s t respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer by inadvertence has treated the acquired land as being agricultural one and not the one converted to industrial user.
6. The petitioner by his representation dated 12.10.2016 requested the 1 s t respondent / SLAO to correct the mistake as to the nature of the land by making a supplementary award showing the land in question to the extent of 708 sq.mtr. as converted into non-agricultural-industrial purpose.
7. Mr.F.V.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the nature of the land has something to do with the quantum of the compensation inasmuch as the market value of the converted land, especially the one converted for industrial purpose, will be far higher than that of an agricultural land, all other conditions being same. 5 WP No.102709/2018
8. The 1 s t respondent had rejected the said application and that the rejection order was set aside by this Court in petitioner's Writ Petition No.108856 of 2016 disposed of on 05.01.2018 remanding the matter for consideration afresh. After the remand, the matter was reconsidered by the 1st respondent and the request of the petitioner is rejected by the impugned order dated *24.02.2018*.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.F.V.Patil, submits that Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act'), vests power in the Land Acquisition Officer, by order to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors arising therein and that the 1st respondent has wrongly exercised this statutory power in rejecting the request of the petitioner for passing the supplementary award incorporating the rectification as to the nature of the *Corrected VCO dated 09.07.2018.
Sd/-
(KSDJ) 6 WP No.102709/2018 land. Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act reads as under:
" 33. Corrections to Awards by Collector.-- 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 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."
( e m p h a si s su p p li e d )
10. The content and scope of this Sub-section match with that of Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This Section reads:
" 152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.--Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time 7 WP No.102709/2018 be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties."
11. I have carefully analysed the structure and architecture of the above two provisions of law which are founded on twin principles that the Court should not prejudice any party and that the Courts have the duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affairs. Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act uses the expressions "Clerical or Arithmetical mistakes" and "Errors arising therein"
('therein' means in the award).
12. An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, while the clerical mistake is a mistake of writing or typographical error by accidental slip or omission. Such errors may be due to careless mistake or the ones made unintentionally or unknowingly. A matter, requiring elaborate arguments or evidence on a question of facts or law, for the discovery of such errors cannot be categorized as errors arising out of in 8 WP No.102709/2018 the award so as to invoke the provisions of Section 33 of the Act.
13. Viewed from the above juridical angle, the request of the petitioner to mention in the award that the land in question is not an agricultural land and that it is converted to industrial user does not fit into the expressions "any clerical or arithmetic mistakes" or "errors arising in the award"
employed by Section 33 of the Act which approximates to Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 inasmuch as the same is going to be a factor in assessing the market value of the property in question.
14. In other words, a very material fact as to the nature of land that is already acquired under law would get loaded to the award in question if the request of the petitioner is conceded to and this virtually amounts to a review of the award in question which the Collector or SLAO cannot do in the absence 9 WP No.102709/2018 of enabling provision in the Act, since after passing of the award, the author i.e., SLAO becomes functus officio.
15. The other reason for declining the relief to the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 33 of the Act make it clear that for their invocability, the award in question should have been made under the provisions of this Act and not under any other Act. Admittedly, the award in question in this case has been rendered under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 which is apparent from the Acquisition Notification and the copy of the award produced by the petitioner himself. Therefore, no rectification could have been granted by the 1st respondent under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.F.V.Patil submits that the Highways Act should be treated as having been impliedly repealed by virtue of 10 WP No.102709/2018 the provisions of Section 105 of the Act and more particularly, sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 105 of the Act, which read as under:
"105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications.--(1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.
(2) X X X (3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and 11 WP No.102709/2018 resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be."
(emphasis supplied)
17. I have carefully considered the provisions of Sections 105 and 106 of the Act. My reading of the said Sections, keeping settled principles of interpretation of statutes discussed by Maxwell or G.P.Singh in their magnum opus, do not admit of Mr.Patil's argument of implied repeal at all. Sub- section (1) of Section 105 of the Act only states that this Act shall not apply to the acquisition proceedings that are governed by the enactments which the Parliament has loaded to the Fourth Schedule to this Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the Act is only an exception which gives power to the Central Government to eclipse Subsection (1) of Section 105 of the Act. Mr.Patil later fairly concedes that there is no Notification issued under this sub-section. Therefore, no request for quashing of the award in 12 WP No.102709/2018 question by invoking the provisions of Section 105 of this Act can be entertained.
18. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. The dismissal of the Writ Petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner pressing into service any claim before the appropriate authority on the ground of nature of land i.e., agricultural or non-agricultural.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-