Palok Basu, Dilip Kumar Seth, JJ. - (1.) MUNNU Ram petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.12.1985, Annexure -9 to the writ petition. By the aforesaid order the Special Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the objection of the petitioner that he was not heard initially or that the reduction the said impugned order is appealable under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. This order of the Bench is dated 18.3.1996. This order consequently was followed by an application moved on 12.3.1996 praying that this wr in the amount made by him in the original compensation Award to the petitioner should be interfered with. Aggrieved, the writ petition has been filed. Then the matter came up before a Bench of this Court it was observed that it petition should be converted into first Appeal. It is not accompanied by any affidavit nor any court -fee has been paid.
(2.) IT is not clear whether the order of the Court dated 18.3.1996 is on the application of the petitioner or was independent of it. Be that as it may, the impugned order has the effect of rejecting objections of the petitioners relating to the reduction of compensation amount. In this view of the matter the petitioner can, if so advised, take up the matter by way of an appeal at the district level. Sri Namwar Singh further pointed out that a restoration application is still pending. This argument is not correct. The impugned order holds that the restoration application was not maintainable because the petitioner was duly served in the proceedings. In the present case the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 28.3.1985 for Rs. 1,38,014/ - (Annexure -2) to the writ petition) was amended under Section 13A of the Act by order dated 27.7.1985 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Annexure -3 to the writ petition) by reducing the amount to Rs. 1,13,250/ -. The said order dated 27.7.1985 was sought to be challenged through an objection (Annexure -6 to the petition) on the ground that the said order was passed ex -parte without notice to the petitioner. Ultimately, by an order dated 27.12.1985 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition), the petitioner's prayer was rejected. The orders dated 27.7.1985 and 27.12.1985 are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The order dated 27.12.1985 has no independent existence. By reason of the order dated 27.12.1985 the order dated 27.7.1985 stood confirmed.
(3.) AN award is made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Collector within the period prescribed in Section 11A of the Act, the same becomes final subject to Section 13A of the Act and by virtue whereof the Collector may correct the same within the period mentioned therein. After such correction is made, the Award is deemed to have been made on the date when such correction is incorporated and the corrected award becomes the final award.;