IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.655 & 1098 OF 2008 C.R.P.No.655 OF 2008 Between: Uppala Venkataramana Chari and another …Petitioners A n d The Special Deputy Collector, L.A., SSP., at PJP, Gadwal. ..Respondent C.R.P.No.1098 OF 2008 Between: Uppala Keshava Chari and another …Petitioners A n d The Special Deputy Collector, L.A., SSP., at PJP, Gadwal. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.655 & 1098 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These civil revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 06-08-2007 in I.A.No.551 of 2005 in O.P.No.117 of 1994 and I.A.No.552 of 2005 in O.P.No.131 of 1994, on the file of THE Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioners herein under Sections 151 and 152 CPC seeking amendment of the decree, were dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The Special Deputy Collector, Wanarpathy acquired certain lands for the purpose of Srisailam Project. An award was passed in Award No.21 of 1978 which is subject matter of O.P.No.117 of 1994 and Award No.19 of 1978 dated 17-03-1978 which is subject matter of O.P.No.131 of 1994. On the applications filed by certain land holders, the matter was referred to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Civil Court enhanced the compensation. The appeals preferred by the Government were dismissed by the High Court. In view of the same, the petitioners herein made an application to the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28(A) of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the compensation. While the said reference was pending, W.P.No.20154 of 1993 was filed seeking a direction to the Special Deputy Collector to dispose of the applications filed under Section 28(A). This Court on 29-12-1993 directed the Land Acquisition Officer to dispose of the said applications and accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer disposed of the applications on 17-02- 1994 holding that the rates fixed by the Sub-Judge, Wanarparhty are high and they are not acceptable. Meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.234 dated 15-11-1993 for final settlement of the land acquisition claims arising out of Srisailam Project. Accordingly, compensation was enhanced in terms of the settlement directing the Land Acquisition Officer to pay Rs.4,41,238/- to the petitioners towards the enhanced compensation. 4. The petitioners filed the present applications seeking amendment of the decree under Sections 152 and 153 CPC seeking deletion of the words “enhanced compensation amount” and substituting the same with the words “balance market value, balance solatium and interest on the said balance of market value and balance solatium”. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.4,41,238/- comprises balance of enhancement of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,75,094/- and interest of Rs.2,66,144/-. The balance of enhancement of compensation in turn includes enhancement in respect of the market value and solatium. The lands admittedly belong to the temple and the petitioners are pujaris cultivating the temple inam lands. The Award is silent about any apportionment of the amount between the temple and the pujaris. According to the petitioners, they are entitled for the sum of Rs.2,66,133.29 Ps being the interest on the ground that they have been cultivating the land and they are entitled for the usufruct which is reflected through the interest. The petitioners filed cheque applications and they were rejected on 25-08-2005 observing that the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the accrued interest once in six months over the amount that is kept in fixed deposit. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present applications seeking amendment of the decree to the effect that they are entitled to withdraw the interest component of Rs.2,66,133.29 Ps. 5. Section 152 CPC which deals with amendment of judgments, decrees and orders states that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Thus, the scope of amendment of the judgment or decree under Section 152 CPC is very limited and is confined to only correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slip or omission. Even Section 153 CPC, which is also quoted by the petitioners, does not strictly apply as it relates to amendment of any defect or error in the proceedings. It is only Section 152 CPC but not Section 153 CPC that is applicable, as the amendment is sought in the decree but not in the proceedings. In fact, no proceedings in the suit or O.P are now pending. By virtue of the proposed amendment, the petitioners virtually seek apportionment of a portion of the decretal amount in their favour, when the decree is silent about the same. As the lands admittedly belong to the temple, the compensation was rightly awarded in favour of the temple and deposited in the name of the temple. Before seeking apportionment in their favour, the petitioners have to establish their claim of entitlement and without such determination of their right for a share in the compensation, no amount can be paid to them from out of the compensation by simply amending the decree. It is, therefore, not a case where a clerical or arithmetical error or accidental slip or omission is sought to be corrected or remedied, but is a case where the petitioners are claiming a share in the compensation as of right without there being any determination of such right in their favour. The proposed amendment is, therefore, out of the ambit and scope of Section 152 CPC and hence the same was rightly rejected by the trial Court. It is, however, open to the petitioners to establish their claim through appropriate proceedings before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. 6. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st March, 2011 Lrkm.