Judgment :- 1. Respondent in L.A.O.P. No. 15/1982 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has preferred this appeal A.S. No. 730/1991, challenging the order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, among other grounds in awarding 12% under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) without noting the fact that the claimants are not entitled for the same. The appellant has contended that the enhancement made by the trial court was unlawful and illegal. This Court after hearing the appeal, has dismissed the appeal with a modification awarding interest at 12% instead of 15% as per Section 28 of the Act. 2. Aggrieved over the same, the Government have come forward with this Review Application. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner Mr. P.M. Murugappan would argue that since the award itself has been passed on 2-4-1981, additional payment at 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act could not be granted and it requires modification. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would argue that interest should have been awarded at 15% as per Section 28 of the Act. Certain dates are relevant. The award has been passed on 2-4-1981 in respect of the Notification dated 8-5-1963. As per Section 23(1-A) of the Act, which relates to the matters to be considered in determining compensation in addition to the market value of the land, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) to the date of the award of the Collector or to the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The order of the trial court has provided 12% as per this provision. This has been confirmed by the appellate Courts decree also. The order of the trial court has provided 12% as per this provision. This has been confirmed by the appellate Courts decree also. The learned Government Advocate has brought to the notice of this Court that as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and others (Judgments Today 1994 (6) S.C. 182 = A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 581) “in respect of acquisition of proceedings initiated prior to the date of commencement of the Amending Act 68 of 1984, the payment of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act will be restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub section (1) of Section 30 of the Amending Act, in so far as it holds that the amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the Reference court on 24th September, 1984 irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector, does not lay down the correct Law.” According to the learned counsel appearing for the Review petitioner, since the award is prior to 30-4-1982, no enhanced amount is payable as per this decision. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would only say that the order passed by the Supreme Court in the above decision is not the final order. But, a reading of the entire judgment would show that it is a final order and no matter is pending in that Special Leave Petition in order to hold that the order passed by the Supreme Court in para 109 of the judgment is not a final one. Therefore, I am of opinion that the order granting 12% additional compensation as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act, has to be modified to the effect that no such additional compensation is available to the petitioner. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the interest has been reduced in the appellate Court Judgment from 15% to 12% and as per Section 28 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to interest at 15%. The learned Government Advocate concedes the above contention of the respondents and also refers to the decision in SLP. (C) Nos. 1558890/1989 in which the Supreme Court directed the respondent-Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition to pay interest to the appellant at the rate of 15% per annum calculated under Proviso to Section 28 of the Act. 6. The learned Government Advocate concedes the above contention of the respondents and also refers to the decision in SLP. (C) Nos. 1558890/1989 in which the Supreme Court directed the respondent-Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition to pay interest to the appellant at the rate of 15% per annum calculated under Proviso to Section 28 of the Act. 6. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in this appeal is modified as follows: The respondents are not entitled to any amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act and therefore the order of the trial Court sanctioning the same is set aside. The respondent is entitled to 15% interest on the compensation awarded as per Section 28 of the Act.