JUDGMENT Mookherjee, J. : The present application arise out of the same judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Burdwan in L.A. cases Nos. 6 to 14 of 1983 rejecting the applications of the State of West Bengal under Sections 151, l52, 153 and 153A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. In connection with acquisition of lands by the petitioners references were made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, giving rise to the aforesaid L.A. cases. On or about 22nd May, 1987, the learned Additional District Judge, first Court, Burdwan, delibered a Judgment, inter alia, holding that the respondents were entitled to 30% solatium and 15% interest. Appeals were preferred by the present petitioners with prayers for condonation of delay but the said prayer for condonation of delay ultimately stood rejected on or about 21st June, 1989. After disposal of Raghubir Singh's case by the Supreme Court, the respondents preferred applications for amendment of the decree which stood allowed on or about 2.11.89 and admittedly there was no challenge to the said order which thus became final. The said decrees were put into execution and in the execution cases, a contention was raised by the present petitioners through its application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the respondents were not entitled to get solatium of 30% and interest at 15%. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. 3. It is to be noted that since there was some doubt as to the maintainability or the appeals, revisional applications were filed by way of caution, and we have heard out the Revisional applications together. 4. As regards the question of maintainability of an application for amendment of decree as preferred or behalf of the petitioner at the execution stage, we are of the view that it is well settled that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree nor has it the power to alter or amend the decree. 4. As regards the question of maintainability of an application for amendment of decree as preferred or behalf of the petitioner at the execution stage, we are of the view that it is well settled that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree nor has it the power to alter or amend the decree. Even assuming that Section 152 could have had application, we do not find any error in the reasoning of the learned Assistant District Judge in holding that the amendments asked for were not clerical or arithmetical in nature but actually depended on construction of legal provisions which in the instant case cannot be upset at this stage in view of the admitted position that the decree as finally made on 2.11.89 remained un-altered. We also find that the reasoning of the learned Assistant District Judge about the non-applicability of Sections 153 or 153A of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be said to be vitiated by Jurisdictional irregularity or error. 5. Even, on merit, the present revisional applications do not have such substance as the Land Acquisition Act, with the amendments, became effective from 24th September, 1984 and the whole purpose of the amendment was to make the benefit of enhanced solatium available in respect of acquisition proceedings taken before that date (vide (1) AIR 1989 SC 1933 paragraph 31). In the instant case, on the admitted fact that the awards under Section 18 were made by court on 2nd May, 1987 the amended provision, following the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in (2) AIR 1990 SC 981 , clearly applies so as to create a right entitlement of the petitioners to claim 30% solatium. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the revisional applications fail and are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to cost. If Urgent certified copy of this order is applied for, the department is directed to deliver the same within two weeks from the date of deposit of requisite stamps and folios. Sinha, J. : I agree.