IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6286 of 2004(W)
1. SRI.ALEX JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INLAND WATER AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :28/02/2005
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
--------------------------------
WP(C) No. 6286 of 2004
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of February 2005
J U D G M E N T
This petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorari or direction to
quash Ext.P1 and direct the 2nd respondent, Special Tahsildar, Land
Acquisition, Vyttila to pass fresh award “adding required amendments.”
2. A perusal of Ext.P1 would go to show that it is only an
affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Vyttila before the Sub
Court, Ernakulam. The contents of Ext.P1 shows that according to 2nd
respondent there were some mistakes in the basic valuation reports
attached to the `Note to Award’ in the Land Acquisition reference and
connected cases. The 2nd respondent sought for corrections to be
made in the basic valuation report to the `Note to Award.’ It appears
that there are some changes in the land value and hence amendment
was sought for on the 4th, 5th and 6th lines in the `Note to Award’. But
it is not comprehensible as to how and on what ground an affidavit
filed by a party before the court below can be quashed.
3. The second prayer is to direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh
award. Admittedly, an award was already passed . But no sufficient
grounds are made out to issue a direction as prayed for. The matter is
under consideration before the court below. The petitioner sought for
a direction to be issued to the Sub Court, Ernakulam to adjudicate the
WP(C) No.6286/2004 2
award only after issuance of fresh award. It appears from the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
corrections sought to be made in Ext.P1 cannot be made because it
will affect the award materially passed in this case. By the proposed
amendments to the Note to Award, as requested in Ext.P1, there can
be material change in the award.
4. But, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
as per Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector cannot
make correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award or
errors arising therein either on its own or on the application of any
person etc. after six months from the date of award. The affidavit is
filed much after expiry of six months from the date of award.
Therefore, the strong contention raised by the petitioner is that
Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act would bar any amendment
being made in the Note to Award.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, in fact, the
2nd respondent is not seeking any amendment as per which there can
be a material change in the award. It is pointed out that instead of
producing the detailed valuation report along with the reference, by
an inadvertent mistake, the basic valuation report was submitted
before the court below and the 2nd respondent has only sought for
WP(C) No.6286/2004 3
including the details shown in the affidavit to be incorporated in the
relevant records. It was contended by the learned Government
Pleader that by including those details there cannot be any change in
the award at all.
6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the fact whether
there would be change in the award or not and whether the
amendments sought for is in view of non-production of the detailed
valuation report etc. will not come within the scope of Art.226 of 227
of the Constitution. The matter is pending before the court below
and the Sub Court, while considering the application for amendment,
based on Ext.P1, will consider the rival contentions raised in respect of
the specific bar under section 13A etc. It is also relevant to note that
petitioner has pointed out that in view of the provisions in the Kerala
Land Acquisition Manual, after the award has been passed, no clerical
error can be corrected.
7. It is provided in the Land Acquisition Manual that even if the
persons interested made consent to the revision or amendment, the
District Collector shall not revise or amend the award once passed.
These contentions can be looked into by the Sub Court while
considering the application. But, I do not find any ground to interfere
in this matter or to quash the affidavit (Ext.P1) filed by the 2nd
WP(C) No.6286/2004 4
respondent, as prayed for. No direction can also be issued to the 2nd
respondent to pass a fresh award.
With these observation, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Krs. K. HEMA, JUDGE.