Shrikant Bhagwandas Patel & Ors. vs The Sub-Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Akola

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The present petition challenges the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Akola, in Case No.162/2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act of 2013”) seeking correction of the Land Acquisition Award dated 30.01.2026 was rejected.

The brief facts of the case are that land bearing Gat No.125, admeasuring 0.61 H.R., situated at Mouza Dabki, Tahsil and District Akola, was acquired for construction of the Akola-Dabki Road. The Land Acquisition Award was passed on 30.01.2026, pursuant to the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.627/2024. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were the original owners of the land, out of which 0.10 H.R. was sold to petitioner No.3 by registered Sale Deed dated 12.10.2020. There was a dispute between the petitioners regarding compensation, which was resolved before this Court. Accordingly, petitioner No.3 was entitled to compensation for 0.05 H.R., while petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to compensation for the remaining 0.56 H.R.

According to the petitioners, there were certain mistakes in the Award dated 30.01.2026 regarding the valuation of the land and trees. They, therefore, filed an application dated 25.02.2026 under Section 33 of the Act of 2013 seeking correction of the Award. However, by order dated 07.04.2026, the respondent rejected the application on the ground that the corrections sought were not clerical or arithmetical mistakes.

I have heard the learned counsel, Adv. Harnish Rajesh Gadhia appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGP, Ms. M.S. Naik appearing for the respondent. I have also gone through the record, the documents placed on record and the judgments relied upon by the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent failed to consider the registered Sale Deed dated 12.10.2020, under which part of the acquired land was sold at Rs.7,500/- per square metre. However, while passing the Award, the respondent determined the market value at Rs.1,840/- per square metre. It is submitted that the said sale deed was relevant for deciding the market value of the acquired land and ought to have been considered.

It is further submitted that the respondent valued the trees standing on the acquired land at Rs.2,06,980/-, whereas the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Akola, by communication dated 17.10.2025, had valued 68 trees at Rs.4,11,920/-. It is also contended that the respondent wrongly applied the slab system under the Ready Reckoner Guidelines while calculating compensation. According to the petitioners, these mistakes resulted in less compensation being awarded and therefore required correction under Section 33 of the Act of 2013.

Per contra, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent submits that Section 33 of the Act of 2013 permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes only. It is submitted that the petitioners are seeking enhancement of compensation in the name of correction of the Award, which is not permissible under the said provision. It is further submitted that the compensation was determined as per Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013 and that the petitioners have a separate remedy available under law if they are dissatisfied with the amount awarded. The respondent, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.

In the backdrop of these facts, I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned AGP appearing for the respondent/State.

Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, empowers the Collector to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in either of the awards or errors arising therein, either on his own motion or on an application of any person, interested or local authority. Thus, it is clear that the said Section operates in a very narrow spectrum. If in the backdrop of this proposition, the application filed by the petitioner is considered, the same primarily seeks two corrections. Firstly, it prays to the authority for consideration of the sale deed executed between the petitioners inter se on 12.10.2020, wherein the acquired land came to be sold at the rate of ₹7,500 per square meter. In the impugned award, however, the value of the said acquired land is determined at the rate of ₹1,840 per square meter. It is, thus clear that under the garb of Section 33 of the said Act as stated supra, the petitioners are trying to seek an enhanced compensation albeit at the rate of ₹7,500 per square meter. This in my conceded opinion is not the true scope and ambit of Section 33. The said Section as I have stated supra operates in a very narrow spectrum. Therefore, the correction as sought for on the basis of the sale deed dated 12.10.2020 cannot be done by resorting to provisions under Section 33.

The next correction principally was sought regarding the valuation of trees affected by the acquisition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon a communication dated 17.10.2025 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Akola to state that as per the said communication the valuation of the trees was ₹4,11,920. As can be seen from the impugned award, the valuation of the trees has been shown as ₹2,06,980/-. It is not clear as to what prompted the authority to arrive at such an amount of ₹ 2,06,980/-.This in my considered opinion seems to be a prima facie error and therefore, the provisions of Section 33 would be squarely attracted to the said aspect. In that view of the matter, following order is passed.

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to reconsider the valuation of trees in the light of communication dated 17.10.2025 and if found correct appropriate correction be carried out in the said Award. However, as far as the correction sought on the basis of sale deed dated 12.10.2020 is concerned, the same does not come within the scope of Section 33. The correction as sought for is, therefore, rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek enhancement on the basis of said sale deed in accordance with the provisions of law.

With these directions, the petition is partly allowed. The order dated 07.04.2026 is quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated to the respondent for reconsidering the valuation of trees in the light of the communication of the Deputy Conservator of Forest as stated supra.