(1) SINCE the respondent had not been represented, we requested learned Advocate Shri G.K. Bansal, to assist the court which he accepted and has given good assistance for which we express our gratitude to him.

(2) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High court of Bombay in First Appeal No. 169 of 1987, dated 24/4/1987. Notification under Section 4(1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was published on 13/8/1979 in the State Gazette acquiring the land for percolation tank in Village Kasampura. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 17/12/1981 awarded the compensation. At the instance of the claimants, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in his award and decree dated 25/10/1983, enhanced the compensation. It would appear that no appeal was preferred. After the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 had come into force on 24/9/1984, the claimants made an application to the reference court for awarding the enhanced solatium, additional compensation and interest under the Amendment Act. The Civil Judge by his order dated 31/3/1986 allowed the application and awarded as under:

"(I) All the petitioners are entitled to the additional amount of compensation as calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of notification or the date of dispossession, whichever is earlier to the date of the award on the entire market i.e., the market value as assessed by the Special LAO and increased by this court in their respective cases. (ii) The petitioners are also entitled to the solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the entire market value. (iii) The petitioners are also entitled to the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act or the date of dispossession, whichever is earlier, till the expiry of one year from that date and thereafter till the date of payment of 15 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation i.e. the total market value plus components, plus solatium at 30 per cent for their respective cases. (iv) Whatever has already been paid on account of market value, solatium, interest shall be deducted from their respective claims."

Dissatisfied therewith, the State carried the matter in appeal and the High Court summarily dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3) THE only question that arises for consideration is whether the civil court has power and jurisdiction to award the benefits of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Shri Bhasme, the learned counsel for the State contended that the civil court gets jurisdiction to determine compensation under Section 23(1 of the Act only on reference. On its making the award enhancing the compensation under Ss. (1 of Section 23, it would be a decree under Section 26(2. The court thereafter has no power to amend the decree except in accordance with law. This is not either a clerical or arithmetical mistake for correction under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code or under Section 13-A of the Act, but is an independent exercise of power. Unless the court is empowered to do so by law, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give the benefits under the Amendment Act.

(4) SHRI G.K. Bansal, learned counsel, on the other hand, contended that since the Civil Procedure Code is made applicable to the proceedings of reference under Section 18, by operation of Section 53 of the Act, the civil court gets inherent power under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code to grant the benefits and that, therefore, the court can pass a fresh order giving the benefits under the Amendment Act.

(5) WE find no force in the contention of Shri Bansal. On receipt of reference under Section 18, the procedure prescribed under S. 19 and 20 of the Act is required to be followed and the civil court determines the compensation in the manner indicated under Ss. (1 of Section 23