Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. - (1.)The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dtd. 27/9/2017 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore.
(2.)The case of the petitioners is that they are owners of certain land which was acquired under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2013") for the purpose of construction of canal. The notification under sec. 11 and 19 of the Act of 2013 was issued on 20/8/2015 and 25/1/2016 respectively. The award was passed on 4/7/2016 (Annexure P/1), whereby, compensation was awarded to the petitioners and other land owners on account of acquisition of lands owned by them.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the beneficiary of the award, namely, Shivnarayan had made an application to the same authority seeking disbursement of the amount of compensation to him. Thereupon, Case No.23/B 121/2016-2017 (Annexure P/3) dtd. 17/11/2016 was registered and vide impugned order dtd. 27/9/2017 (Annexure P/6), the earlier entitlement of the parties of their share as per original award dtd. 4/7/2016 (Annexure P/1) was modified and the quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioners has been reduced to the extent of two-third of the amount and direction has been issued to disburse the balance one-third amount in favour of respondents No.3 and 4. He further submits that once the award was passed on 4/7/2016, the Land Acquisition Officer becomes funtus officio and he cannot modify the original award so as to incorporate certain new conditions. More so, such an order is in ignorance of the fact that a Writ Petition No.167724/2016 is already pending before this court wherein the ownership of respondents No.3 and 4 is under dispute and the question of title of the parties is also pending before the Civil Court at Bhopal. He further contends that any party aggrieved with the award dtd. 4/7/2016 could have taken recourse to Sec. 64 of the Act of 2013, however, , the same authority cannot exercise any power which has the effect of modifying the original award.