( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3060 OF 2010 1. Gangadhar Malhari Shinde, Since deceased, by his L.Rs. 1A. Dhanu Gangadhar Shinde 1B. Mangu Gangadhar Shinde 2. Nivrutti Dhondiba Asane 3. Tryambak Bandu Mali Since deceased, by his L.Rs. 3A. Haribhau Tryambak Mali 3B. Sukhadeo Tryambak Mali 3C. Kacharu Tryambak Mali 3D. Shivaji Tryambak Mali 4. Bhimraj Ramchandra Sonwane Since deceased, by his L.Rs. 4A. Babasaheb Bhimraj Sonwane 4B. Karbhari Bhimraj Sonawane 5. Karbhari Dagdu Aher Since deceased, by his L.Rs. 5A. Santosh Karbhari Aher 5B. Suresh Karbhari Aher 5C. Avinash Karbhari Aher 6. Sopan Dhondiba Asane Since deceased, by his L.Rs. 6A. Walmik Sopan Asane Since deceased by his L.Rs. 6A-1.Revannath Walmik Asane 6B. Namdeo Sopan Asane All r/o Brahmangaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector @ Land Acquisition Officer No. 7, Nagar-Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar. ( 2 ) 2. The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Express Canal, Godavari Vikas Mhamandal, Division No. 2, Tq. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. K.S. Bhore, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for the respondent/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd June, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned counsel of the parties, heard finally. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 6th February, 2010, rendered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Kopargaon on their applications No. 6 to 11 of 2010. By passing the common order, their applications were rejected for the reason that the rectification in the judgement was not permissible and there was no substantial reason to invoke section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code so as to amend the award after lapse of about eight (8) years. 3. The petitioners are the original claimants in whose favour, land reference application Nos. 1/1989 to 11/1989 had ( 3 ) been terminated. The Reference Court awarded enhancement of compensation to each of them, separately. The award was rendered on 31st December, 2001 wherein the interest amount was awarded under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act over the enhanced compensation amount, but while calculating the interest, it was calculated upto the date of the final decision rendered by the Reference Court. The only grievance of the petitioners was that the interest should have been made payable upto the date of realization of the entire amount. The calculation of such interest is indicated in the award itself. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGP for the respondent/State. 5. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows : “28. If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on ( 4 ) such excess at the rate of nine per centum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court; Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry.” Perusal of the section purports to show that the interest is payable on such excess amount at rate of 9 per cent from the date on which possession is taken till the date of payment of such excess amount. It is obvious that the interest payable under section 18 is required to be calculated for period till the date of payment of the enhanced compensation. Needless to say that it cannot be restricted to the period of the date of award. The learned Civil Judge seems to have been under wrong impression that the application for modification of the award ( 5 ) was not maintainable because the final amount of compensation is clubbed together after calculation of the price of the land and interest as well as the compensation in respect of trees. It is important to notice that the interest payable under section 28 is only on the enhanced amount of compensation and, therefore, it does not matter whether it is payable on compensation payable in respect of the trees as well as the compensation in respect of the land. The learned Civil Judge seems to have been under wrong impression that the petitioners were trying to mislead the Court that the amount of the trees and the interest have not been paid to them. On what basis, such kind of observation is made, is inexplicable. 6. The learned Civil Judge should have allowed the modification which comes within the ambit of section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code because the mistake is apparent and moreover, the calculation of the interest as permissible under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act could be done after ascertaining the exact amount of enhanced compensation payable to each of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The ( 6 ) impugned order is set aside. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.) is directed to rectify the award by specifying the period of interest payable on the enhanced compensation amount from date of possession of the acquired land till realization of the entire compensation. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp3060-10