IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1988 of 2008 THE UNION OF INDIA Versus GOVIND KRISHNA MISHRA & ANR ----------- C.R. No.1990 of 2008 THE UNION OF INDIA Versus GOVIND MISHRA & ORS ----------- C.R. No.1991 of 2008 THE UNION OF INDIA Versus GOPI KRISHNA MISHRA & ANR ----------- 3. 8.12.2008 Heard Mr. Awadh Bihari Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra as also Mr. Narvadeshwar Jha, counsel for the opposite parties. How long the Railways can deprive a person from being paid the amount of compensation for the land initially temporarily requisitioned and later on acquired can be better demonstrated from the proceedings of this case. The Railways have admittedly taken possession of the land of the opposite parties initially by way of temporary requisition and later on by acquiring it permanently. When the question of payment of compensation for the period in question arose the matter received attention of the 2 authorities and the Collector had made certain payment. Being aggrieved by such determination made by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act a reference was sought and the Reference Court in its operative portion of all the three cases had enhanced the rate of sugar cane per quintal alongwith the interest, 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent year in keeping with the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforementioned award the Railways filed three first appeals, namely, F.A.No. 360/2003, 361/2003 and 362/2003. An application under Order 41 Rule 5 seeking stay of the award was also filed in those first appeals and this Court by an order dated 8.1.2007 in all the three first appeals had passed the following order: “I.A.No. 2664 of 2005 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for stay of the operation of the judgment and decree under appeal and for stay of further proceeding in the connected execution case pending in the court of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Bagaha, for execution of the decree which is 3 under challenge in this first appeal. This matter arises out of a land acquisition matter and hence the decree passed there is a money decree. Furthermore, although learned counsel for the appellant has argued at length, but I do not see any reason for interfering with the execution of the money decree in question. However, such payments as per the decree could be made on furnishing security as provided under the provisions of law. The appellant is at liberty to move the learned court below for removal of any clerical error in the impugned decree under the provision of section 152 of the Code. With the aforesaid observation, I.A.No. 2664/2005 is disposed of.” Picking a thread from the aforementioned order of this Court the Railways again moved the Land Acquisition Judge this time projecting a picture that there was a clerical error in the award and as such the same should be corrected under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below has found that there was no clerical error in the award and 4 to that extent the court has examined operative portion of the award and has recorded a finding that there was no errir in the decree passed in the L.A.case, therefore, it required no amendment. The court below also has added that the petition was filed deliberately in order to harass and delay the payment of decretal amount. Mr. Awadah Bihari Ojha in his usual gesture had made a clear submission that he does not doubt the proposition of law that whenever the amount is revised it has to be revised from the date of initial award. He also does not dispute the proposition of law that such amount is liable to be covered with interest from that very date. His submission, however, is that the court has committed an error in calculation by deducting the amount paid by the Collector in the total calculation made as per award alongwith the interest. He would submit that the first amount should have been calculated as payable under the order of the award and thereafter whatever amount was paid by the Collector should have been deducted and thereafter on balance the interest should 5 Surendra/ have been directed to be paid. In the opinion of this Court, this cannot be said to be a clerical error. The expression „clerical error‟ is well settled. A question of interpretation of statute or the provision of law, is within the domain of the appellate court in appeal and not of the court under section 152 C.P.C. In the present case in view of the findings recorded by the court below that there was no error in the calculation and nothing contrary has been shown by the petitioner Railways in the calculation sheet furnished to the court, this Court would not be in a position to pass an order which would be contrary to the earlier order passed by this Court in the first appeals. Any order that may be passed now by this Court in the name of removal of clerical error, subject matter of appeal and thus cannot be gone into under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so, all these three civil revision applications are wholly misconceived and they are hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5000/- in each case which has to be paid in addition to the amount which has became payable to the opposite parties in terms of the Award. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 6