Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—I have heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri P.C. Shukla holding brief of Sri N.C. Rajvanshi for the claimant-respondents and perused the record.

2. This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.4.1988 passed by the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Misc. Case No. 243 of 1986 whereby the application of the claimant-respondents to modify the award dated 15.2.1985 passed in L.A.R. No. 164 of 1978 has been allowed and the award dated 15.2.1985 has been modified by increasing the awarded solatium from 15% to 30 % and the interest payable under Section 28 of the Act from 6% p.a. to 9% p.a.

3. The undisputed facts are that land acquisition proceedings were initiated vide notification dated 5.5.1976, under Section 4(1) of the Act, followed by notification dated 6.5.1976, under Section 6(1) of the Act. Possession was taken on 29.6.1976 and 27.4.1977, followed by an award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 30.3.1978. The claimant-respondent objected to the proposed compensation, consequently, a reference, under Section 18 of the Act, was made, which was registered as L.A.R. No. 164 of 1978. The reference Court, on 15.2.1985, passed an award thereby awarding Rs. 4,47,906/- as compensation alongwith 15% as solatium on the amount with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of possession up to the date of payment or deposit in the Court. Later, on 22.9.1986, an application was filed by the claimant-respondent, purportedly, under Section 151 read with Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for modification and amendment in the judgment and award dated 15.2.1985 on the ground that by virtue of the Amendment Act No. 64 of 1984, the claimant was entitled to solatium, under amended Section 23(2) of the Act, at the rate of 30% on the market value as also interest, under amended Section 28 of the Act, at the rate of 9%. The Court below took the view that as the reference Court passed the award after the Act No. 68 of 1984 had come into force i.e. 24.9.1984, the claimant was entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of Sections 23 and 28 of the Act and as, due to oversight, the benefit of the amended provisions was not provided to the claimant, the operative portion of the award required modification. Accordingly, the solatium was enhanced from 15% to 30% and the interest was enhanced from 6% p.a. to 9% p.a. As neither party could inform the Court, despite opportunity, whether any appeal was preferred against the award, accordingly, it is assumed that the award of the Reference Court attained finality.

4. The modification order dated 16.4.1988, has been challenged in this appeal on two grounds:

(a) that the award dated 15.2.1985 had become final, therefore, the same could not have been modified/altered in exercise of power under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC as such powers are exerciseable only when there is any clerical or arthmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or ommission and it cannot be used to review/modify a judgment or award, which has already become final; and

(b) that as the award of the Collector was passed on 30.3.1978 and that of reference Court on 15.2.1985, the benefit of the amended provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 and of Section 28 of the Act were not available, inasmuch as, by sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984), the benefit of the amended provisions were available only where the Collector’s or Court’s award was made after 30th day of April, 1982 and before the commencement of the Act No. 68 of 1984 i.e. 24.9.1984.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that by several decisions of the Apex Court it has been settled that where proceedings are pendin