The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the enhanced compensation amount as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the scope of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC and the provisions of Sections 152 and 153 CPC for correction of judgments, decrees, and orders.

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the District Judge, Patiala, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present revision petition are that the land of the petitioners was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala passed award No.1 of 1997- 1998 on 07.08.1998 and the possession of the acquired land was taken on 19.08.1998. The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') was registered as Land Reference No.1 of 16.09.1998, which was decided on 29.07.2011 For Subsequent orders see CM-10595-CII-2017 by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Patiala (District Judge, Patiala). As per the said judgment, the petitioners were held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of passing of award by the Collector till the date of payment under Section 28 of the Act. More than one year had passed from the date of passing of award i.e., 07.08.1998 as well as taking of possession i.e., 19.08.1998 and the petitioners were entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year i.e., from the date of taking of possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till actual payment is made. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC for making corrections in the judgment and requested the Tribunal to grant interest @ 15% per annum after expiry of period of one year from the date of award/taking of possession by correcting the name of petitioner No.3. Reply to the application was filed wherein it was admitted that as per provisions of Section 28 of the Act, interest was payable @ 9% for one year and @ 15 % thereafter. The application filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2014, which has been challenged by way of filing the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, which are statutory in nature and the petitioners cannot be deprived of the same at the time of passing of judgment dated 29.07.2011. Learned counsel further submits that payment of interest on excess compensation is covered by the provisions of Section 28 of the Act. The period of more than one year had expired from the date of passing of award as well as taking of For Subsequent orders see CM-10595-CII-2017 possession and the petitioners were entitled for interest. Learned counsel also submits that in para No.8 of the application, it has been mentioned that the name of one of the petitioners i.e., petitioner No.3 was mentioned as Preet Singh Sidhu instead of Sat Preet Singh Sidhu and that correction was liable to be corrected to avoid any complication at the stage of getting of the compensation. It was a typographical error but the same has not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel also submits that the judgment relied upon in the impugned order is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Vikas Aggarwal v. Anubha, 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 602, Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, 1962 AIR (SC) 527, P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham & Anr.,2009(9) SCC 173 as well as judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India through defence Estates Officer, Delhi Circle, Delhi Cantt. v. Chandan Singh son of Tek Chand, and others, Civil Revision No.6345 of 2011 decided on 09.04.2013 in support of his contentions.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by le