Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI …RESPONDENT
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6637 OF 2010
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI …RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Vineet Saran, J.
whether under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’),
after the passing of the Award under Section 11 of the Act, the
Signature Not Verified
remains to be paid.
Section 11 of the Act, the same had become final as per Section 12
of the Act, and the same could not have been reviewed under any
provision of the Act. It has been contended that the only provision
is for correction of clerical errors etc. under Section 13A of the Act,
six months and not beyond. It is thus contended that Award dated
01.10.2003 had attained finality, and could not have been reviewed
ought to have been paid and the High Court has wrongly denied the
same.
been paid to the petitioner as the same would not be payable under
the 8th Clause of Section 24 of the Act. It has been contended that
the Land Acquisition Collector at any time, and in the present case,
the same was done on the instruction of the Secretary, Land and
Award was sent to the appellants, but the same is denied by the
LatestLaws.com
1894 for review of the Award once passed under Section 11 of the
Act and had attained finality. The only provision is for correction of
clerical errors in the Award which is provided for under Section 13A
of the Act, which was inserted with effect from 24.09.1984. The
that the same is not a provision for Review of the Award but only for
further provided in the sub-Section (1) of Section 13A that the said
correction can be made at any time, but not later than six months
from the date of award. In the present case, the Land Acquisition
which was also clearly passed beyond such period of six months.
been passed under Section 13A of the Act, which is meant only for
provision in the Act under which the said order dated 14.07.2004
on the land has been deducted from the Award dated 01.10.2003
land of the appellants was legal or illegal could only be decided after
Acquisition Act, 1894 for review of the Award, the passing of the
justified in law.
the Collector shall become final on the same being filed in the
that the Award dated 01.10.2003, of which due notice had been
given to the appellants and part compensation had also been paid
LatestLaws.com
same could not have been reviewed, and that too beyond a period of
only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any
“……………
12. It is settled legal proposition
that unless the statute/rules so
permit, the review application is not
maintainable in case of
judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In
the absence of any provision in the
Act granting an express power of
review, it is manifest that a review
could not be made and the order in
review, if passed, is ultra vires,
illegal and without jurisdiction.
(Vide Patel Chunibhai
Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao
Jambekar [AIR 1965 SC 1457]
and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam
Singh [AIR 1966 SC 641] .)
13. In Patel Narshi
Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji
Arjunsinghji [(1971) 3 SCC 844 :
LatestLaws.com
10
01.10.2003 could not have been reviewed by the Collector, and thus
Court in Writ Petition (C) No.2185 of 2008 and Writ Petition (C)
No orders as to costs.
………………………………..J.
[Arun Mishra]
………………………………..J.
[Vineet Saran]
………………………………..J.
[S. Ravindra Bhat]
New Delhi
Dated: October 17, 2019