Competent Authority May Correct Apparent Clerical Errors in Awards Despite Lack of Express Statutory Provision

The petitioners claim ownership of land in Village Gollav, Taluka-Godhra, bearing new Block No. 1331 (formerly Old Block No. 80/1/Paiki 2)

Under a Notification dated 28.09.2020 pursuant to Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (the "Act"), the land was acquired for a pipeline project by IHB Private Limited

An award was passed on 13.01.2023

The petitioners allege a clerical "mischief" or error in the award: their land (Block No. 1331) was incorrectly described as being old Block No. 175 instead of old Block No. 80/1/Paiki 2

Consequently, compensation was wrongfully disbursed to Respondent No. 3, the actual owner of old Block No. 175, whose land was never acquired

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve factual disputes regarding the identification and description of acquired land in a compensation award

2. Whether the Competent Authority has the power under the Act of 1962 to correct clerical or apparent errors in an award

The court primarily analyzed Sections 10 and 11 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. Section 10(2) and 10(5) provide that disputes regarding compensation determination or apportionment must be referred to the District Judge.

The court noted that the Act lacks an express provision conferring power on the Competent Authority to correct clerical mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record.

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an inappropriate forum for conducting detailed factual inquiries or resolving intricate, disputed questions of fact.

The Court observed that while the petitioners alleged a clear clerical error based on revenue records (Village Form No. 7/12), resolving the grievance requires a factual inquiry into the identity of the land.

Since the Act of 1962 does not specifically empower the Competent Authority to correct such errors, and because Article 226 is not meant for trial-like evidence gathering, the Court established a middle path. It reasoned that the Competent Authority could be directed to entertain an application for correcting "errors apparent on the face of the record" to ensure justice, provided such inquiry does not delve into "intricate, disputed questions of fact".

If the inquiry reveals a genuine dispute requiring evidence, the matter must then be referred to the District Judge under the statutory mechanism of Section 10(2).

The Court directed that if the petitioners file an application for correction within three weeks, the Competent Authority must: (i) issue notice to Respondent No. 3; (ii) examine revenue and acquisition records to ascertain the identity of the land; and (iii) correct any clerical error in the award if it is apparent on the face of the record. However, the Authority is prohibited from deciding complex factual disputes; if such disputes arise, the Authority must refer them to the District Judge for determination under Section 10(2) of the Act.