1. The petitioners in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are aggrieved by an order dated 21.11.2006 passed by learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, III, Patna, whereby he has rejected an application filed by the petitioners under Sections 114, 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the judgment dated 04.04.1990, in view of the amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) introduced by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.

2. I have heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned Government Pleader No. 21 appearing on behalf of the State-Respondents. On a request made by this Court, Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General No. 14 has given valuable assistance to this Court for proper adjudication of the case. This court places on record deep appreciation for his assistance extended by Mr. Shahi.

3. Facts are short and are not much in dispute. The petitioners land at Mauza Murarpur and Abdul Rahmanpur was acquired by the Respondent State of Bihar for construction of a marketing yard. A notification to that effect under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued and accordingly award was passed, without adding interest and solatium thereon. Being aggrieved by the award of Special Land Acquisition Collector, Marketing Board, Patna, the petitioners along with other land holders filed an application for reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act, objecting to the amount of compensation granted to these petitioners. The case was accordingly referred to and registered as L.A. Case No. 317 of 1979, in the Court of learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, III, Patna.

4. Learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, III, Patna, decided the reference vide his judgment dated 04.04.1990 allowing solatium at the rate of 15% on the amount of compensation determined and interest at the rate of 6% per annum and award was drawn up on such terms.

5. This is apt be noted here that as per Section 26 (2) of the Act, such award is deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award, a judgment; within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (2) and Section 2 Clause (9) respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Sixteen years after the said date of judgment (04.04.1990), the petitioners filed an application in the Court of learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, III, Patna under Sections 114, 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a plea that provision as contained in Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and for the words “fifteen per centum” occurring in the said provision, the words “thirty per centum” were substituted. Similarly, Section 34 of the Act was amended and in place of “six per centum”, “nine per centum” came to be fixed as the rate per annum payable on amount of compensation, from the time of taking possession until it was paid or it was deposited. It is the case of the petitioners that there was accidental omission / clerical error in judgment and decree (award) passed by learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, III, Patna and in place of “thirty per centum”, only “fifteen per centum” was mentioned as the solatium amount and interest at the rate of 6% was granted on the amount of compensation, which rate should have been 15% as per the amended provision.

6. Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that this mistake occurred in the judgment of learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, III, Patna due to accidental slip and oversight inasmuch as the rate of solatium and interest was fixed, overlooking the amendments made in the land Acquisition Act which had become operative from 24.09.1984. He submits that so as to get the judgment (award) correct