Judgment Ramratna Singh, J. 1. On a reference under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , the then District Judge of Hazarbagh (sic). R.K. Sinha), by his judgment dated the 24th November, 1954 raised the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 875/- per acre, besides the statutory compensation of fifteen per cent and directed the preparation of an award. His judgment and award were silent in respect of interest on the amount of compensation, from the date of dispossession by the Collector. The award decree was prepared on the 28th November, 1954 and, without any objection, a was sealed and signed on the 1st December, 1954. On the 4th April, 1956, Bridhi Chand Banshidhar, one of the claimants, filed a petition for amendment of the decree by making a claim for interest before the new District Judge (Mr. A. Mukherjee); Government Pleader was informed of this petition through the Courts order street; and Mr. Mukherjee passed an ex parte order allowing interest at six per cent per annum. On the 11th May, 1957, the Government Pleader filed a petition praying that the order allowing interest to Bridni Chand Banshidhar on the 4th April, 1956 be cancelled. When the petition was being heard, the lawyer for another set of claimants, namely, A.K. Daw and B. Daw requested the Court to allow interest to his clients as well. It was said that a petition had been filed on behalf of his clients, but no such petition could be traced. Relying on the provisions of Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and the decision of the Privy council in Ingiewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd., V/s. New Brurwick Electric Power Commr., AIR 1928 PC 287, Mr. Mukherjee allowed interest to both sets of claimants at 6 per cent per annum from the date of Collectors taking over possession of the lanu. mr. Mukherjee thought that, inasmuch as there was omission in the order dated the 24th November, 1954 not to make any mention of interest and there was no bar of limitation to the claim for interest, the claimants were entitled to the same both in law and equity. This order was passed on the 23rd December, 1957, and the present appeal was preferred by the State on the 24th March, 1958. Mr. This order was passed on the 23rd December, 1957, and the present appeal was preferred by the State on the 24th March, 1958. Mr. Mukherjee, however, amended the award decree of the Court in respect of the interest on the 8th August, 1958. 2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the appeal was not maintainable against the order dated the 23rd December, 1957 rejecting the States application for review. Of course, no appeal lies against such an order; but this appeal can be treated as an appeal against the award decree amended on the 8th August, 1958, even though it was premature on the 24th March, 1958. It is impossible to accept the argument of Mr. Harilall Agarwana that the amendment of the decree in respect of interest was merely an omission or a clerical error and that it did not amount to variation of the decree. 3. Another preliminary objection raised by Mr. Agarwalla was that tne appeal ought to have been preferred by the Union of India, as the acquisition was tor the purposes of the Union, and the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh is not competent to prefer the appeal. But it appears that at all the stages, the Deputy Commissioner was the only opposite party and, therefore, this objection cannot be entertained at this stage. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Mr. Mukherjee had no power to allow interest to the claimants, when no interest had been allowed by the learned Judge who decided the reference on the 24th November, 1954 and that in no case could interest be allowed tor any period subsequent to the 24th November, 1954. 5. Both these submissions are well founded, Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act provide for interest. 5. Both these submissions are well founded, Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act provide for interest. Sec.34, which speaks ot interest on the amount awarded by the Collector, enacts: "When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited." It will be noticed that it is mandatory for the Collector io pay interest on the amount awarded by him from the case of taking, possession of the acquired land until the amount has been paid or deposited, in the instant case, Bridhi Chand Banshidhar did not say in their petition dated the 4th April, 1956 that the Collector had not given them interest on me amount awarded by him. The ether claimants, namely, Daw brothers did not file any petition at all, and, for the first time on their verbal submission, the Court below allowed them interest at 6 per cent per annum by its order dated the 23rd December, 1957; and they also did not state that the Collector had not allowed them any interest. 6. Sec.28 reads thus; "If the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. It will be seen that under this section the court which decides a reference under Sec.18 may in its discretion direct the Collector to pay interest on the difference between the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector anc, the amount awarded by the Court itself. The learned District Judge, who disposed of the reference by his judgment dated the 24th November, 1954 did not allow any interest at all and his silence regards the interest indicates that he did not consider it necessary to allow any interest on this difference. The learned District Judge, who disposed of the reference by his judgment dated the 24th November, 1954 did not allow any interest at all and his silence regards the interest indicates that he did not consider it necessary to allow any interest on this difference. Section 53 of the Act lays down that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, apply to any land acquisition proceeding before the Court. Under Sec.34 of the Civil Procedure code, it is in the discretion of the Court to refuse or allow interest for the period subsequent to the institution of the suit, or, to the date ot tne decree, and, where the decree is silent with respect to the payment of interest subsequent to the date of we decree, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest. Sec. 54 ot the Land Acquisition Act makes the provisions of the Code applicable to appeals against any decision of the Court under the Act. Any person aggrieved by the judgment dated the 24th, November, 1954 and the decree of the District Judge could come up in appeal tor the purpose of getting interest under Sec.28, None of the provisions for review contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code was attracted in the instant case. There was no "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. For review, there should be something more than simple omission regarding interest. Hence, the remedy in respect of interest, was by way of an appeal, and not by the review petition which Bridhi Chand Banshidhar filed on the 4th April, 1956 and which was allowed on the 23rd December, 1957 by Mr. Mukherjee. 7 The decision of the Privy Council in the case of AIR 1928 PC 287 referred to by Mr. Mukherjee, was a case from the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, and that decision is not relevant when there are specific provisions in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding inierest. Mr. Mukherjee was, therefore, in error when he allowed inerest at 6 per cent per annum by order dated the 23rd December, 1957 on the review petition of Bridhi Chand Banshidhar and on the oral submission of Daw Brothers. Mr. Mukherjee was, therefore, in error when he allowed inerest at 6 per cent per annum by order dated the 23rd December, 1957 on the review petition of Bridhi Chand Banshidhar and on the oral submission of Daw Brothers. Learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the omission in the judgment of the lower Court dated the 24th November, 1954 regarding interest was a clerical error, and, therefore, it could be corrected by the successor District Judge; but I am unable to agree. 8. In view of the above findings, the amendment or the lower Court decree by allowing interest must be set aside; and the appeal is allowed accordingly, but without costs in the circumstances of the case. Kanhaiya Singh, J. 9 I agree.