JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - These applications u/s 151 CPC read with Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, have been filed in First Appeals Nos. 39 and 40 of l973 respectively which were decided by a Division Bench of this Court by a common Order on 9th August, 1983. Some land belonging to the applicants in First Appeal No. 39 of 1973 and the applicant in First Appeal No. 40 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the amount payable to the applicants as compensation was finally determined by this Court in the first appeals aforesaid on 9th August, 1983. In the present applications, relying on the amendment in Section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (here after referred to as the Act) made by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) a prayer has been made that the applicants should be awarded solarium at the rate of 30 per cent in place of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent in place of six per cent. 2. For the Respondents it has been urged that an application u/s 151 CPC for the aforesaid relief is not maintainable and the proper course for the applicants was to file an application for review Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC on payment of requisite court fees thereon. It was also urged that the applications, if treated as review applications, are highly time barred. Reliance in support of the submission that proper course for the applicants was to move an application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan v. Raja Shatranji 1963 AWR 100 . In that case a revision application arising out of an order passed by the Civil Judge rejecting his application made u/s 4 of the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act for amendment of several 'money decrees passed by a Special Judge u/s 14 of the Encumbered Estates Act had been rejected by this Court. In that case a revision application arising out of an order passed by the Civil Judge rejecting his application made u/s 4 of the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act for amendment of several 'money decrees passed by a Special Judge u/s 14 of the Encumbered Estates Act had been rejected by this Court. The applicant had contended in his application u/s 4 that there were mortgaged properties charged under the decrees but this Court held that no charge was created by the decrees and consequently the applicant was not entitled to apply u/s 4 of the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act. Subsequently the said Section 4 was amended on 4th December, 1962, by Amendment Act 20 of 1962 and the words " charged under the decree " occurring in the said section were deleted. Section 2 of the Amendment Act land down that the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act shall, from the date of its enforcement, have effect subject to the amendments made by this Act as if this Act had been in race on all material dates. On the commencement of the Amendment Act an application for review was filed. A question arose as to whether the review application was maintainable ? It was urged that even though the amendment was retrospective but since the amended provision was actually not on the statute book on the date when the revision was initially dismissed it could not be said that any of the grounds contemplated by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing a judgment was made out. This contention was repelled and it was held that the amending act having been given retrospective effect its result was that at the time of deciding the application for review the Court has to assume as real all consequences and incidents flowing from the Amending Act being given retrospective effect In other words, this Court has to assume today and proceed on the footing that even on the date when the revision was initially dismissed Section 4 of the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act did not contain the words " charged under the decree ". On the view that in judgment dismissing the revision application there was an apparent error of law on the face of the record the review application was allowed. On the view that in judgment dismissing the revision application there was an apparent error of law on the face of the record the review application was allowed. The decision of this Court in the case of Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan (Supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Raja Shatrunji Vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan and Others, AIR 1971 SC 1474 . 3. Counsel for the applicants on the other hand submitted that the prayer made in the instant applications was not for review in the sense contemplated by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC but was for giving effect to the statutory provision in regard to payment of solarium and interest which more or less cast a duty on the court itself to pass an order in terms of the provisions contained in Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act as amended by the amending Act. It was also urged that since no court fee was payable on the claim for solarium or interest no question of payment of any court fees on the review application under the Court Fees Act arose. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties at some length we are inclined to agree with the submission made by counsel for the applicants. Section 23(2) of the Act as is apparent from its plain language requires the court to grant solarium at the rate and on the sum mentioned therein. Likewise Section 28(2) also enjoins a similar duty on the court to allow interest in the circumstances mentioned in the said section. It is true that as far as Section 28 is concerned the power given to the court is discretionary as distinguished from the duty cast upon it by Section 28 but in our opinion since judicial discretion has to be exercised on objective considerations in the absence of any circumstance which may justify refusal to award interest as contemplated by Section 28 awarding of interest in the normal course under the said section is also more or less in the nature of a duty cast upon the court. In Kesireddy Appala Swamy and Others Vs. In Kesireddy Appala Swamy and Others Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Central Railway, Vijayawada, AIR 1970 AP 139 it was held by a Full Bench of that Court that under the Land Acquisition Act while solarium u/s 23(2) may form part of the compensation to be awarded by the Collector u/s 11.it does not form part of the award which the Court has to pass u/s 26, though it is required u/s 23(2) to add 15 per cent on the amount of market value awarded by it. Which will be in the nature of a direction to the Collector to pay the amount just in the same way as he is directed to pay interest. The reason for excluding solarium from the award to be passed by the Court is perhaps due to the solicitude of the Legislature not to over burden the owner whose lands are acquired against his will with payment of court fee thereon. The amount which an owner is required to claim includes neither solarium nor interest, but only compensation for all his interests in that land. Thus, solarium u/s 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act forms part of neither the claim nor of the award, and consequently in appeal u/s 54 thereof no court fee is payable on such amount. 5. A similar view was taken by a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in D.M. Jawanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1975 Karn 129 . It was held that solarium is merely an adjustment to the main amount of compensation payable u/s 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and claim to solarium stands or falls with the decision on the main claim. Awarding the amount as solarium is a statutory duty and, therefore, it (solarium) need not be claimed. Though solarium is not in the discretion of the Court aids the Court is bound to award it, claims not based on any asserted right but dependent on the decision of disputed right, such as claim for solarium in an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act do not come within the purview of the expression ' subject matter of dispute in the memorandum of appeal '. Reliance in that case was placed on the following observations of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Reliance in that case was placed on the following observations of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mishri Lal Tarachand Lodha and Others, AIR 1964 SC 457 where the question whether in an appeal an Appellant is bound to pay court fee on the amount of pendenteljte interest decreed in a suit was considered: On what principle are these amounts not treated as forming part of the value of the subject matter in dispute in appeal? Such value is to be determined on the substantial allegation in the plaint or from the pleas in the memorandum of appeal with respect to the point in dispute between the parties and sought to be determined by the Court. Such are necessarily the points affecting the rights of the parties sought to be adjudicated by the Court. Claims not based on any asserted right but dependent on, the decision of the disputed right and reliefs in regard to which are in the discretion of the Court do not come within the purview of the expression 'subject matter in dispute in plaint or memo of appeal'. On the basis of the aforesaid observations the -learned Judges of the Karnataka High Court held that though solarium unlike interest is not in the discretion of the Court and the Court is bound to award it, the main reasoning of the Supreme Court, namely, that claims not based on any asserted right but dependent on the decision of the disputed right, do not come within the purview of the expression 'subject matter of dispute in the memorandum of appeal', applies to the claim for solarium in an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. In regard to interest payable u/s 28 of the Act on the excess compensation awarded, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in J. Pattammal v. Collector AIR 1972 Mad 158 held that interest payable u/s 28 on the excess compensation awarded is like the interest payable u/s 34, not a part of compensation for the acquisition of the land in the sense that it is a quid pro quo for the value of the land taken. Unless there is a special circumstance indicating to the contrary interest will invariably have to be paid u/s 28 on the excess compensation awarded by the court, and as such there is no need at all for the Appellant to make a claim for interest on the excess compensation to be allowed in the appeal, and to pay court fees thereon. 7. In view of the aforesaid decisions it is apparent that even if an application for review was to be made Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC no court fees could be payable by the applicants in regard to their claim for enhancement of the amount of solarium and interest in conformity with the provisions Contained in the amending Act. 8. The provisions of Section 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by the amending Act as also the provisions contained in Section 30(2) of the amending Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court recently in the case of Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576 . It was held that u/s 30(2) of the amending Act the provisions of the amended Section 23 Sub-section (2) and Section 28 are made applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on 30th April, 1982, or filed subsequent to the date, whether before the Collector or before the court or the High Court or the Supreme Court, even if they have finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act. It was further held that it would not be a correct interpretation of Section 30 Sub-section (2) to say that the provisions of the amended Section 23 Sub-section (2) and Section 28 would be applicable in relation to an order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court only if the order is passed in appeal against an award by the Collector or Court between 30th April, 1982, and the commencement of the Amending Act. The decision to the contrary taken by it in K. Kamalajammanniavaru (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1985 SC 576 was disapproved, on the ground that the said decision cannot be regarded as laying down the correct law in regard to Section 30(2). Solarium and interest at the rate as enhanced by the Amending Act was allowed by the Supreme Court. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1985 SC 576 was disapproved, on the ground that the said decision cannot be regarded as laying down the correct law in regard to Section 30(2). Solarium and interest at the rate as enhanced by the Amending Act was allowed by the Supreme Court. In paragraph 7 of the report while summing up the discussion it was held; It is, therefore, clear that u/s 30, Sub-section (2), the provisions of the amended Section 23, Sub-section (2) and Section 28, are made applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on 30th April, 1982, or filed subsequent to that date, whether before the Collector or before the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court, even if they have finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act. (emphasis supplied). The words "even if they have finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act " referred to above clearly indicate that even if an appeal which was pending in this Court on 30th April 1982, had already been decided before the commencement of the Amending Act namely 24th September, 1984, the claimants would be entitled to the amount of solarium and interest as enhanced by the Amending Act. As a necessary corollary it is obvious that if an application is made in such an appeal as aforesaid for enhancement of the amount of solarium in accordance with the Amending Act it shall be the duty of the court to allow the application. Such an application even in regard to the enhancement of the amount of interest shall also have to be allowed notwithstanding the effect that the provisions of Section 28 are discretionary in the absence of any cogent ground for exercising the discretion against the claimants. Keeping in view the nature of the amount payable as solarium and interest and the observations made in various decisions referred to above we are of opinion that au application for enhancement of solarium and interest based on the Amending Act will lie u/s 151 Code of CPC for allowing such an application would apparently be in the interest of justice. 9. Now we advert to the decision of this Court in the Case of Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan (Supra) as upheld by the Supreme Court. 9. Now we advert to the decision of this Court in the Case of Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan (Supra) as upheld by the Supreme Court. The legal position seems to be as held in Full Bench decisions of the Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Madras High Courts referred to above that solarium and interest payable Under Sections 23(2) and 28 respectively of the Act do not form part of the award and do not come within the meaning of the expression " subject matter of dispute in the memorandum of appeal " and that the court directs payments of these amounts because of the statutory requirements in this behalf. Consequently prayer for enhancement of these amounts is not really a prayer to review an award or decree. In view of the legal fiction that on account of its being retrospective the relevant provisions of the Amending Act will be deemed to be on the statute book even on the date when the appeal was decided, a prayer for enhancement of the solarium and interest on the basis of the Amending Act in substance amounts to really pointing out to the court that an inadvertent error has occurred in the judgment, namely, that solarium and interest have been awarded at the rate of 15 per cent and 6 per cent only when in fact in view of the statutory provisions in this behalf the same should have been awarded at the rate of 30 per cent and 9 per cent respectively. Correction of such an inadvertent error would fall within the ambit of the inherent powers of the Court. The decision of this Court in the case of Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan (Supra) involved a modification of the decree in respect of the subject matter of the suit itself for which an application for review Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC may have been needed. The said case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 10. At this place it may be pointed out that a similar application u/s 151 CPC read with Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, made on 27th March, 1985 in First Appeal No. 77 of 1972 decided on 19th January, 1984, i.e. in between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 17th October, 1985. 11. 11. In the result these applications succeed and are allowed and the operative portion of the judgment dated 9th August, 1983, passed by this Court In the two appeals mentioned above is modified to this extent that the applicants will get solarium at the rate of 30 per cent in place of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per dent in place of 6 per cent. There shall be no order at to costs.