SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---This appeal, with the leave of this Court challenges the judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court of Sindh whereby appellant's application for amendment of decree which was allowed by the learned District Judge was dismissed.
2.The facts leading to this appeal as stated in the leave granting order are as follows:-- "The petitioner's (appellant's) land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the dovernmcnt of Sindh under the Notifications published on 11-11-1916 and 10-3-1977. The compensation was awarded at the fate of Rs.5,000 per acre for cultivated land and Rs.3,Ot10 per acre for uncultivated land. For Sikni land the compensation was awarded at the rate of 25 paisa per sq. Ft. While making the award the Assistant Commissioner ordered for payment of 15% compulsory charges and interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The petitioner (appellant) dissatisfied with the award filed Suit No.280 of 1978 in the Court'of Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur, which vas decreed on 29-4-1980 directing the respondent to hold ,fresh proceedings under section 11 of the. Act after giving notice to the petitioner (appellant) and the value of the land be re-fixed in terms of sq. Ft. The appeal filed by the petitioner (appellant) against this judgment was dismissed by the District Judge and.t11e revision filed against that judgment was also dismissed by the High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench, on 9-12-1981. On 17-1-1982 the petitioner (appellant) filed fresh application before the respondent. Who finally passed a fresh award dated 10-4-1982 allowing compensation at 25 paisas per sq. Ft. The petitioner (appellant) filed an application before the respondent for making a reference in terms of section 18 of the Act.
The learned Additional District Judge by judgment dated 1-3-1983 awarded compensation at Rs.2 per sq. Ft. To the petitioner (appellant). In appeal it was remanded for adducing additional evidence of the market value. This time the Additional District Judge fixed the compensation at Rs.2 per sq.Ft together with 6% interest and 15% compulsory acquisition charges. None of the parties challanged it and it, therefore, became final. As the compensation was not paid the petitioner (appellant) filed an _t:c::;ie~n a, plicLition fur release of Rs.11.35J4H. The respondent filed oh,j1_- ctio>; staling that the petitioner (appellant) was entitled to Rs.617,194.13. During arguments the petitioner (appellant) also claimed 15%. Per annum of the compensation which was fixed in terms of section 28-A of the Act. This claim was not granted as decree did not provide for it. The learned District Judge refused to grant it as it would amount to going t)eyond the decree. On 22-6-1987 the petitioner (appellant) moved an application under sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. Before the District Judge praying that the judgment dated 28-5-1986 and decree be corrected and additional amount of 15% per annum along with 15% compulsory charges and 6'l, interest be awarded. The said application was allowed by order dated 4-10-1987 and decree was ordered to be amended accordingly. The respondent was directed to pay 15% per annum of the compensation. The respondent prayed for review of the order which was dismissed. The respondent then filed appeal against order and decree dated 4-10-1987 and order dated 10-12-1987 in the High Court of Sindh which was .Allowed by the impugned judgment."
3. Leave to appeal was granted to consider that in view of the mandatory provision of section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as `the Act'), the Court was duty bound to grant additional compensation as provided by it and failure on the part of the Court to grant it being the mistake of the Court the decree should have been corrected and the party should not have been allowed to suffer.
4. Presently the dispute is in respect of grant of additional compensation at the rate of 15% per annum of the compensation allowed from the date of notification under section 4 to the date of payment of compensation. This claim has been made under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition (Sindh Amendment) Ordinance, 1984, promulgated on 30th September, 1984. In view of the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court directing to make amendments in the Act in its application to the Province of Sindh several amendments were made and section 28-A was added which reads as follows:- "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."
5. In the judgment and decree granted by the learned District Judge this amount of additional compensation under section 28-A was not included. The appellant made this claim at the time of execution of the decree but the Executing Court refused to go beyond the decree. In consequence thereof, the appellant filed application under sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. Which was allowed but in appeal it was set aside observing that on the commencement of the action section 28-A was not in the field, the judgment of the learned District Judge is silent about it and did not extend the benefit of section 28-A to the respondent (appellant) either intentionally or unintentionally. It was further observed: "the application of section 28-A of the said Act is not automatic but the Court deciding reference under section 18 of the said Act has to pass a specific order in terms of section 28-A and unless such an order has been pasked the claimant cannot seek benefit of the section."
6. There can be no dispute that an order has to be made for grant of additional compensation under section 28-A which order was not made. The appellant had applied for correction of the judgment and decree as his entitlement was not disputed and it was merely an unintentional omission on the part of the Court not to have granted additional compensation while passing judgment on reference under section 18 of the Act.
7. A perusal of section 28-A will show that it is mandatory in nature and provides for additional compensation from the date of publication of notification under section 4 to the date of payment of compensation. The main purpose of making this provision is to discourage the tendency to delay the payment of compensation in time and to ensure that the party whose property has been acquired, is duly compensated without unnecessary loss of time. It is the duty of the Collector that on making an award under section 11 he should tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to person entitled to it according to the award unless he is prevented by any reason provided in section 31. In case the party is not available or does not consent to receive, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted. Therefore, after the award has been made there should be no delay in making payment or depositing the compensation in the Court.
8. Having analysed the nature and purpose-of section 28-A of the Act it is to be considered whether in the facts and circumstances of the case relief could be granted to the appellant under section 152, C.P.C. Which reads as follows:- "152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.--Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein 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:'
Section 152 enables a Court to correct the mistake, omission or error in. The judgment, decree or order which has crept into it inadvertently and unintentionally. Such mistakes are mostly caused due to inadvertent mistake of the Court. The rules,of procedure as provided by C.P.C. Are intended to foster justice, therefore, no one should be allowed to suffer due to the mistake of the Court.
9. The Court has jurisdiction to correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors caused due to accidental slip or omission in a judgment, decree or order. Depending on facts, it confers a wide discretion on the Court to correct, (i) clerical or arithmetical mistake, (ii) errors caused due to accidental slip or omission in the judgment, decree or order. Such power can be exercised at any time. Where the Court is bound to grant a relief which the party seeks, or where the Court is bound to grant relief even without it being sought by a party and if unintentionally or inadvertently the Court does not grant such relief, it would be justified at any time to correct such accidental omission or error by exercising power under section 152.
10. Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, has referred to Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Limited v. Ms. Ali Asbestos Limited and 5 others 1990 M LD 130.
In this case a suit was filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance and Order XXXIV, Rule 2 read with Order XXXV11, Rule 3, C.P.C.. The Court while granting preliminary decree inadvertently did not grant relief against the mortgaged property although prayer for decree against it had been made. Subsequently the plaintiff filed an application under section 152, C.P.C. Relying on Ram Singh v. Sant Singh and others AIR 1930 Lahore 210 and Raj Raj Bahadur Singh v. Shatranjai AIR 1942 Oudh 226 in which several other judgments were referred it was observed as follows: "These observations clearly lay down the principles involved in section 152, C.P.C.. Where the Court has not passed any order unintentionally but due to oversight or omission, although in the facts and circumstances of the case the party was entitled to such relief, the Court is empowered to correct that mistake so that no party should suffer due to unintentional omission of the Court. In this suit plaintiff was entitled to a decree under Order 34, C.P.C. In the normal course. The omission to grant this relief was not intentional."
11. In the case at hand the learned District Judge while awarding compensation omitted to grant additional compensation as provided by section 28-A. This was a clear omission caused due to accidental slip as in the normal course such compensation should have been granted to the appellant at the time the learned District Judge passed the judgment.
12. Mr. Rahimtoola, the learned counsel for the respondent, while referring to the Ordinance XXIII of 1984 by which section 28-A was added, contended that as it was promulgated on 30th September, 1984, and the award was made by the Collector on 10-4-1982, the appellant was not entitled to claim the additional compensation. According to the learned counsel the law prevalent at the time of making the award should be made applicable. The learned counsel has referred to Abdul Khaliq v. Bashir Ahmed and others 1987 SCM R 1029, The Chief Land Commissioner, Sindh v. Ghulam Hyder Shah and others 1988 SCM R 715. In the later case before amendment in the Land Reforms gift made to a non-heir was allowed but after the amendment gift was permitted only to the heirs. It was held that amendment will not affect the gifts made to heirs before the change. It may be mentioned that the appellant had challenged the award which was set aside by the learned District Judge and it was remanded for re-hearing. After remand the Collector made the award which was challenged and the learned District Judge was seized of the matter on 28-5-1986 when section 28- A was in operation. The learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to Province of East Pakistan and others v. Sharafatullah and 87 others PLD 1970 SC 514, where it was observed that compensation should be assessed in accordance with the state of law as it prevailed when the property stands acquired or when the dispute arises as to the amount of compensation payable to the owner. These judgments are of no assistance to tte respondent. In the present case there is no dispute about the compensation awarded by the Collector. The dispute is in respect of the additional compensation which is allowed on the basis of the amount of compensation which stands determined according to law. In the present state of law it is the duty of the Collector and/or the District Judge to add additional compensation as provided by section 28-A to the Amount of compensation determined by them. The impugned judgment is set aside and the order of the learned District Judge for payment of additional compensation as provided by section 28-A is restored.
The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.