RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE State Government issued a Notification dated 18. 07. 1979 for acquisition of the land in dispute situated at village Jhalana Chod, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. THE Notification under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1953) issued on 22. 06. 1982 followed by the Notification under Section 17 (4) and notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1953 and the lands of the respondents No. 3 and 4 measuring 14 bighas 10 biswas comprised of Khasra No. 1 situated at village Jhalana Chod, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur were acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award on 14. 05. 1984 which was later on modified on 28. 11. 1985. It was submitted by the petitioner RIICO that in pursuance of the award full and final payment was made to the respondents No. 3 and 4. THE respondents No. 3 and 4 did not challenge the award at the relevant point of time. After more than six years of the award and 5 years of the modified award, respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted an application on 5. 04. 1990 claiming additional solatium under Sec. 23 (1a) as well as additional interest u/sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended from time to time) (hereinafter to be referred as the Acquisition Act ). THE learned Land Acquisition Officer vide its order dated 27. 04. 1995 passed an order revising the compensation and the solatium. THE petitioner challenged the second award dated 27. 04. 1995 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the case No. 46/79 Devi Ram & Kanhaiya Lal vs. RIICO.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in view of Section 13 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act which authorises the Collector to correct any clarical or airthmatical mistake in the Award or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a local authority within a period of six month from the date of the award or where he has been required under Section 18 of the Acquisition Act to make a reference to the Court before making such reference after giving reasonable opportunity for making its representation in the matter to the affected person. It is further submitted that admittedly period of six months expired much prior to the making of the application by the respondents No. 3 and 4 on 5. 04. 1980 (Annexure-3) and thus, the order of the learned Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No. 2) can not be deemed to have been made under the provisions contained in Section 13-A of the Acquisition Act. It is further contended that sub section (1) of Section 23 of the Acquisition Act, the Court is required to take into consideration the following ingredients:- First, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub section (1); Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops of trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
(3.) THIRDLY, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by person of severing such land from his other land; Fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriousy affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner or his earnings; Fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interest is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and ;