Judgment :- This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the trial court dismissing an application filed for amendment of the decree. 2. It appears in favour of the petitioners an award was passed by the Collector under Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of his land. Dissatisfied with the amount granted by Collector the petitioners filed Land Acquisition Original Petition 46 of 1988 in the Court enhancement of compensation. The Court passed an order enhancing the compensation. Opposing that order the respondent-Government preferred an appeal to the High Along with that a stay application was also filed. In that stay application the High passed a conditional order to the effect that stay is granted on condition of the Government depositing 50% of the enhanced compensation which the claimants will be entitled receive. The claimants raised an objection stating that the amount deposited by Government is less than the amount ordered to be deposited stating that the Government liable to pay interest on the solatium amount also but the Government has not deposited interest and they must be directed to deposit that amount also. But the Court held that decree it is not mentioned that the respondent-Government is liable to pay interest solatium also and if the claimants are entitled to interest they have to get the decree amended and that can be done only by the original court. 3. Thereupon the claimants filed C.M.P.No.1259 of 1991 in the High Court for modifying stay order passed by it so as to enable the claimants to file an amendment petition. the High Court passed an order stating that the stay granted will not bar the claimants filing a petition for amendment of the decree. After this modification of the stay order claimants filed a petition in the original Court I.A.No.174 of 1990 for amendment decree. In that application the original Court ordered that the stay has been lifted filing a petition for amendment of the decree but the decree cannot be amended amending the Judgment. It further held that the amendment sought for is not clerical arithmetical mistake in Judgment and decree or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission and therefore the petition filed under Sec.152 cannot be maintained. these findings the original Court dismissed the petition. As against that this Civil Petition has been preferred. 4. It further held that the amendment sought for is not clerical arithmetical mistake in Judgment and decree or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission and therefore the petition filed under Sec.152 cannot be maintained. these findings the original Court dismissed the petition. As against that this Civil Petition has been preferred. 4. As regards the finding of the original court that the order passed in C.M.P.No.1259 is in respect of the amendment of decree only and not the Judgment also, the claimants C.M.P.No.11134 of 1991 in the High Court for clarification whether the said order passed C.M.P.No.1259 of 1991 is for amendment of the Judgment also and the learned Judge clarified by stating that the order is for amendment of the judgment also. In view clarification the finding of the original court that there is stay only with regard to filing petition for amendment of decree and not of Judgment has no force. As such in this we are concerned only with the question whether the amendment petition filedunder Sec,152 is not maintainable as held by the trial court. 5. As regards the question whether the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium; Supreme Court in a recent Judgment in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State, Kerala, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2192, has answered this question in the affirmative. It is said follows: “Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that Sec.25(3) contemplates payment of interests on solatium to recompensate the owner of the land for loss of user of the land from the of taking possession till date of payment into court. The word compensation has advisedly used by the legislature. Accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled interest on solatium.” (Italicised is mine) In view of this authoritive pronouncement of the Supreme Court there is no gainsaying the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium. 6. Now, taking up the question whether the amendment petition is maintainable Sec.152, C.P.C., Mr.P.Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for the. claimants-petitioners submits that when in law the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium non-mention interest on solatium in the order of the court in only accidental slip or omission and the order can be amended under Sec.152, C.P.C. In support of this contention counsel cites one decision of the Orissa High Court in Jayakrishna Mangaraj Mohapatra State of Orissa and another, A.I.R. 1976 Ori. 203, and another decision of Haryana in Nand Rani and others v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1982 P. & H. 184. decision it has been held that, Statutory interest provided under Sec.28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an integral the decree to be passed by the Court and the Court, while determining compensation the Act, has to award the same. An omission to award statutory interest is an can be cured by the Court in exercise of its power under Sec.152, C.P.C.” In the second case, wherein the decision in the first case has been referred to, it is Interest under Sec.28 is an integral part of compensation which is to be awarded Court. Omission in the judgment to award interest on compensation constitutes accidental slip within the meaning of Sec.152, C.P.C. and can be rectified at any time am in respectful agreement with these decisions. When the claimants are entitled interest on compensation awarded that interest must be directed to be paid to order of the Court. And if there is no such direction that will be indeed an accidental omission. Therefore it clearly comes within the purview of Sec. 152, C.P.C. 7. Even otherwise, I may add that if for any reason it is to be held that Sec.152, not attracted, even then the Court is bound to order payment of interest atleast Sec.151, C.P.C. In this connection an observation of the Supreme Court in yet recent decision in “Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1991)1 262,” is relevant to note: The costs and interest under the Act if not awarded by the lower court can awarded by higher courts in any proceedings under the Act and to any party entitled same under the Act. The payment of interest is not dependent on any claim by whose land has been acquired. There can be no controversy or any lis between regarding payment of interest. When once Sec.34 is attracted it is obligatory Collector to pay the interest. If he fails to do so the same can be claimed from the proceedings under Sec.18 of the Act or even from the appellate court/courts thereafter. From these it is very clear that the claimants can seek for amendment of the decree order for directing the Government to pay interest to the claimants on the solatium. 8. If he fails to do so the same can be claimed from the proceedings under Sec.18 of the Act or even from the appellate court/courts thereafter. From these it is very clear that the claimants can seek for amendment of the decree order for directing the Government to pay interest to the claimants on the solatium. 8. In this view of the matter the Revision is allowed and the order and decree passed trial Court are amended as prayed for. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.