Binod Kumar Roy, J.

1. The petitioner has come up against an order rejecting his application by which he had prayed for correction of accidental omissions/clerical errors in the judgment and decree (award) in a Land Acquisition Proceeding.

2. The facts are short and simple.

3. Sec. 23(2) of the unamended Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was to the following effect:

In addition to the market value of the land as above provided the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

By the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 in Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 23 aforesaid for the words "fifteen per centum" the words "thirty per centum" were substituted.

4 Sec. 34 of the unamended Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was to the following effect:

When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.

By the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 in the aforementioned Section for the words "six per centum" the words "nine per centum" were substituted apart from adding a proviso which runs as follows:

Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within 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 compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.

5. By the judgment dated 14th September, 1987, the Land Acquisition case in question was allowed in part, but without cost, holding that the petitioner would be entitled to 15% solatium on the amount of compensation determined and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of taking possession till, the realisation of the compensation awarded. An award was also drawn up on similar terms.

6. An application under Sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed praying to correct the rate of solatium from 15% to 30% and the rate of interest from 6% to 9% in the judgment and decree (award) on the ground that due to an accidental slip and oversight, the rate of solatium and interest has been passed by overlooking the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act which had become operative from 24th, September, 1984. By the impugned order the said application was rejected on the ground that the appellate court alone is competent to rectify the mistakes and that in no circumstance the court is competent to rectify the mistake since final judgment have been given by it.

7. Shri Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below has completely misconceived the provisions of Sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure which confers jurisdiction to correct accidental mistakes or omissions as well as clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees.

8. Learned Advocate General for the State of Bihar on the other hand contended that the errors were such which could not be corrected under the provisions of Sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. In the Palace Administration Board V/s. Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran and Ors., while considering a review application it was observed as follows by the Supreme Court:

"Horace Wrote" But if Homer who is good nods for a mement, I think it a shame we in the Supreme Court, do no despite great care to be correct, and once a clear error in our judgment is revealed no sense of shame or infallibility complex obsesses us or dissuades this Court from the anxiety to be ultimately right, not consistently wrong.

In my view the observations made by the apex court also applies to cases pending before any court in which there has been accidental omissions, slips, clerical/arithmetical mista