1. NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--- By this application the applicants have prayed that correction in the judgment dated 1-2-1985 may be allowed and the claimants may be allowed additional compensation of 15% per annum on the amount of compensation plus interest @ 6% per annum on the additional compensation from the date of publication till payment., The claim of the applicants is that due to some accidental slip and error in the judgment the benefits of sections 28-A and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were not extended to the claimants/applicants due to which the applicants have suffered huge loss. Pakistan Steel Mills has filed its objection. In the objection it was submitted that the possession was taken over by Pakistan Steel Mills, on 28-12-1974 and the last installment of enhanced compensation was deposited on 29-12-1992 along with interest @ 6% per annum from 23-12-1974 to 29-12-1992 and no interest is payable on the amount which was already paid.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Section 28-A was inserted in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred as the Act), by Sindh Ordinance 23 of 1984, which provides additional compensation which reads as under:-- "28-A. Additional compensation.--- In addition to the compensation fixed on the basis of market value as prevailing on the date of notification under section 4 an additional amount of fifteen per cent., per annum of the compensation so fixed shall be paid from the date of the notification under section 4 to the date of payment of the compensation."
4. The award in the above matter was passed on 6-12-1974 on the date when section 28-A was added to the Act and the matter was pending before the High Court in reference under section 18 of the Act. The High Court delivered the judgment on 27-11-1985 after insertion of section 28-A in the Act. The pendency of the reference amounts to pending proceedings as the matter of payment of compensation was not finally adjudicated. The matter deems to be pending as the applicants have not accepted the award and the same was referred by Land Acquisition Officer to High Court for its decision. The day i.e. 27-11-1985 when the High Court has given its decision section 28-A of the Act has occupied the field and the claimants were entitled for the allowance provided under section 28-A of the Act. It appears that section 28-A was not brought to the notice of the learned Bench resulting in loss to the claimants. The allowance provided under section 28-A of the Act is mandatory in nature and from the language of the statute it is clear that relief has to be provided to the claimants irrespective of their request. The provision is beneficial in nature and would apply to all pending proceedings. The payment of additional compensation was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a case reported as Abdul Hamid Ali and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Badin PLD 1998 Kar. 50 wherein it was observed as follows:-- ".... I am clear in my mind that since the appellants had not been paid the amount of compensation awarded by a competent Court of law notwithstanding the circumstance that the judgment and decree was passed at a time when the amendment was not operative would be entitled to this additional compensation with effect from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the deposit of the amount in the account of the District Court."
5. From the above reported case it is clear that additional compensation is payable in cases which are not finally closed. In this case also when the amendment was inserted no amount was paid to the claimants and they are entitled to the additional compensation. In the above reported cases it was also held that the provision of section 28-A of the Act is self-executory which does not envisage intervention by the Court. The matter of payment of additional compensation was also considered by another learned Single Bench of this Court in reported case of Dilawar Hussain and others v. The Province of Sindh and others PLD 1993 Kar. 578 held as under:-- .... However, where compensation is enhanced and enhanced compensation is not received or paid and, during the time intervening, the mandatory law has appeared on the statute book, any subsequent payment including that already due before the amendment but not paid would carry a further solatium at the rate of 15 % per annum from the date of notification up to the date of actual payment of compensation."
6. In the above reported case the payment of additional compensation was considered in the execution application for the land which was acquired in 1960 and the reference filed was decided on 27-8-1970 and the matter was finally decided by the Honourable Supreme Court on 18-2-1987. In the above reported case the learned Bench has also discussed past and close transaction and has held as under:-- "On the foregoing analysis, it would seem to emerge that an executing Court can also, in appropriate cases, take into consideration a change in law and such may pertain not only to a state of facts where the law has followed subsequent to the passage of the decree but also to a point of time when the decree had not attained finality and for some reason the intervening law either escaped examination or was otherwise omitted, for example, such law contemplating an effect too obvious to be dilated upon."
7. In the present case also when section 28-A of the Act was introduced no payment was made to the claimants and matter cannot be treated as past and closed transaction. The matter was finally decided by this Court on 27-11-1985 and the payments were made after 27-11-1985 ignoring section 28-A of the Act.
8. In view of above the applicants/claimants are entitled to additional compensation of 15% per annum of the compensation so fixed from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act to the date of payment of compensation. As far as the interest as provided under section 34 of the Act it appears that the same was awarded to the claimants/applicants by the High Court while deciding this reference.
9. Now the question is whether the relief, claimed by the applicant can be granted under section 152, C.P.C. 'The provision of section 152, C.P.C. provides that clerical and arithmetical mistakes or errors from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. From the reading of section 152, C.P.C. it appears that the same has two parts. One deals with the clerical or arithmetical mistakes and the other deals with accidental slip or omission in the judgment and decree or orders. The error in this case falls under category of accidental slip or omission. It appears that the provisions of section 28-A of the Act was not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of judgment dated 27-11- 1985 and the Court has not granted the additional compensation as provided under section 28-A of the Act. From the judgment it is clear that the omission to grant relief is not intentional but appears to be an accidental slip or omission, which may be corrected at any time by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Since the non-awarding of additional compensation appears to be unintentional and due to accidental slip or omission it can be corrected in exercise of powers under section 152, C.P.C. and the omission can be rectified at this stage.
10. The application (C.M.A. No,6889 of 2003) is allowed in the above terms.