WPs 6341/11 & 6392/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6341/2011 Namdeo Budha Kachare & others V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6392/2011 Sarika Nitinkumar Jain through GPA Nitinkumar V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri A.B. Kale, Advocate for petitioners. Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 10.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have basically approached this Court for directing the respondents to pay the amount towards 30% solatium and 12% component. From the perusal of the documents, WPs 6341/11 & 6392/11 2 which are annexed at Annexures F & G of the petition, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the entitlement of the petitioners with respect to 30% solatium and 12% component. The perusal of the communication dated 26.7.2011 would reveal that the respondent no.4 has himself informed the respondent nos.2 & 3 that the said office has no objection for paying the said amount. It has been further stated that while publishing an award, if the said amount is included, necessary funds will be made available by the respondent no.4. However, it appears that immediately thereafter the award is passed and, therefore, the communication is addressed by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.4 dated 29.7.2011 that now since the award was passed on 28.9.2011, the aforesaid amount cannot be included in the award. It has been stated that the said amount should directly be paid by the respondent no.4 to the petitioners. Shri S.K. Tambe, learned AGP WPs 6341/11 & 6392/11 3 submits that since the award is finalised by the State Government, it is not permissible to change it. It can thus be seen that though, neither the respondent no.3 nor the respondent no.4 disputes the entitlement of the petitioners regarding 30% solatium and 12% component, they are trying to pass the buck from one to the other. It will be pertinent to note the provisions of Section 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act. It can be seen that the aforesaid amount could not be included in the award on account of certain procedural errors committed either by the respondent no.3 or the respondent no.4. In that view of the matter, we find that this is a fit case wherein the respondent no.3 be directed to exercise his powers u/s 13-A of the Land Acquisition Act and issue necessary corrections in the award with respect to 30% solatium and 12% component. It is needless to state that determination of the said amount would not WPs 6341/11 & 6392/11 4 require any application of mind, but would only depend upon the arithmetical calculations. Rule is made absolute by directing the respondent no.3 to make corrections in the award by adding 30% solatium and 12% component. The same shall be done within a period of six weeks from today. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 10.10.2011 ndk/c10101126