B. P. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision has been filed at the behest of the Land Acquisition officer, Ganjam, challenging the order dated 17. 10. 1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior division), Aska, in Execution Petition No. 3 of 1989 arising out of M. J. C. No. 75 of 1987 mainly on the ground that (a) the interest so awarded by the trial Court while calculating the compensation to be paid by the State is not in accordance with law; (b) the order has been passed without following the procedure; and (c) interest under Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition act of 1894 (in short 'the Act') is not payable on additional market value and solatium. ( 2 ) AT this stage, it is profitable to state the background of the case which led to this revision application. The State Government acquired Ac. 3. 512 of land belonging to the opposite party for the purpose of excavation of Raghunath sagar Minor Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition officer, after considering the relevant factors, fixed the market value of Dry-1 land at rs. 2,000/- per acre and rain-red land at Rs. 4,000/- per acre. As the opp. party raised objection, same was referred to the learned subordinate Judge. Aska, under Sec 18 of the act for determination of compensation and the learned trial court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the learned Court also allowed compensation for mesne profit at the rate of 10% per annum from 1978 to 1988, i. e. for ten years, along with solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value. The aforesaid award of the learned trial court was challenged by the State in First appeal No. 120 of 1989 before this Court and while disposing of the appeal this Court confirmed the market value of the land as determined by the trial Court and also allowed interest @ 10% for the period from 24. 4. 1978 till the notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act were issued towards non-enjoyment of the crops. 4. 1978 till the notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act were issued towards non-enjoyment of the crops. It was further held that the claimant was also entitled to permissible statutory benefits under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 and directed the trial Court to calculate accordingly and to make an award under Section 26 of the Act. Thereafter the learned trial Court while calculating the compensation allowed interest @ 9% and determined compensation at Rs. 62,324/- but the opposite party filed an application before the trial Court with a prayer to grant him interest @ 15% per annum under Section 28 of the act which was rejected by the trial Court. Against this order a Civil Revision was preferred being C. R. No. 16 of 1997 before the district Judge. Ganjam, who declined to interfere with the said order. Against this order of the learned District Judge, a writ petition being ojc No. 3938 of 1998 was filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india and this Court by order dated 21. 4. 1998 came to the following findings :"section 28 as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 reads as follows : "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.-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 nine percent per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court : provided that the award of the court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. " the aforesaid proviso was inserted by central Act 68 of 1984 which came into force with effect from 24. 9. " the aforesaid proviso was inserted by central Act 68 of 1984 which came into force with effect from 24. 9. 1984. In view of the clear provision, the petitioner's case for recalculation of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum is clearly covered by the aforesaid proviso to Section 28. Inasmuch as the award of the Land acquisition Collector was made on 9. 12. 1986 after coming into force of central Act 68 of 1984. The learned civil Judge as well as the learned District Judge clearly fell into error in not awarding interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as provided under Section 28. It is a clear case;where the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned district Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. 5. For the reasons indicated above, order dated 11. 10. 1996 passed by the civil Judge, Senior Division, Aska, in e. P. No. 3 of 1989 (M. J. C. No. 75 of 1987) and the order dated 12. 2. 1998 of the learned District Judge in Civil revision No. 16 of 1997 are hereby set aside. The learned Civil Judge is directed to pass appropriate order granting interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum to the petitioner, keeping in view the provision contained in Section 28 of the Act. He will pass necessary orders after hearing the petitioner who will appear before him on 4. 5. 1998 for taking direction. "it is pertinent to mention that the learned State counsel in course of his argument filed a recalculation sheet before this Court. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the opp. party has raised the following objections : (i) This civil revision is not maintainable because there is no provision for filing a revision under the Act except against an order refusing reference. So, in other words, except an appeal under Sec. 54 of the Act, there being no scope to file a revision, the revision is liable to be dismissed; (ii) The attempt of the State is to upset a portion of the award passed in favour of the opp. party which amounts to introduce a new case which is not permissible; and (iii) The calculation so impugned in this revision has been done by the learned trial Court pursuant to the direction of this Court with regard to solatium. party which amounts to introduce a new case which is not permissible; and (iii) The calculation so impugned in this revision has been done by the learned trial Court pursuant to the direction of this Court with regard to solatium. ( 4 ) LET me first examine the question of maintainbility of the revision application against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) in calculating the decretal amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate its claim that the revision is not maintainable draws my attention to the provision in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and argues that the present case of the state does not come within the scope and ambit of that Section, as it fails to comply with the required conditions in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Sections 115 of the Code. He further argues that the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) having exercised jurisdiction vested in him under the Act, the decretal amount which was calculated by the Court did not satisfy the petitioner, it could have come up in appeal under Section 54 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner supports his case stating that a revision lies as the impugned order is not appealable under Sec. 54 of the Act. Section 54 of the Act reads as follows :"54. Appeals in proceedings before court-Subject to the provisions of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decree, and notwithstanding any thing contained to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in Section 110 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908. and in order XLV thereof. "in my opinion, since by the impugned order only calculation has been made by the trial court, it will not come within the meaning and scope of decree, as defined in Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, because to come within the meaning of 'decree', there must be a formal and final adjudication conclusively detemining the rights of the parties in controversy. The view of mine also gets support from a decision of this Court reported in Satrughana mohanty v. L. A. Collector, Cuttack. To sum up, Section 54 of the Act does not cover a situation as it stands in the present case. Therefore, the revision is maintainable. ( 5 ) FURTHER, the petitioner raised an objection that the trial Court by the impugned order dated 17. 10. 1998 determined the amount of compensation and has allowed compensation on solatium and additional market value and at the same time allowed compound interest on the amount due to the opposite party. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties and going through the notes submitted and the calculation sheet filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as considering the calculation of amounts so made by the learned trial court, 1 find the following : (1) Learned trial Court has added the 1. 76 (1993) CLT 205. solatium to the market value and has calculated crop damage @ 10% on the same as market value+ solatium which is erroneous. (2) Learned trial Court calculated 12% additional land value as per Section 23 (1-A) of the Act on market value+solatium+crop damage which is also wrong. (3) The calculation of trial Court awarding interest under Sec. 28 of the Acton the entire amount, i. e. , land value+solatium+10% crop damage 12% additional land value, is also wrong. (4) Learned trial Court erred in law by granting interest from the date of the award. (5) By calculating interest with rest after one year with 9% and at the time of payment made by the l. A. O. to deduct the payments, thereby indirectly compounding the interest. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid findings, the order so impugned stands to no reason and the same is set aside with the following directions : (a) 30% solatium is payable on the market value as on the date of the notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the act. No interest as per Section 28 of the Act is payable on solatium, following the case decided by the apex Court in Yadaurao P. Pathade (dead) by L. Rs. etc. v. State of Maharashtra. No interest as per Section 28 of the Act is payable on solatium, following the case decided by the apex Court in Yadaurao P. Pathade (dead) by L. Rs. etc. v. State of Maharashtra. (b) Claimant would be entitled to additional amount of the enhanced market value of 12% per annum, from the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act till the date of award, since in the present case possession had already been taken before the amending Act came into force. (See Special Tahasildar (L. j P. W. D. Schemes v. M. A. Jabbaar), (c) While calculating interest as per section 28 of the Act, the solatium to be excluded (d) Interest under Sec. 28 of the Act is payable from the date of dispossession at the flat rate throughout till final payment without rest @ 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent period. In the result, while setting aside the impugned order, I remand the matter to the trial court with the direction to re-calculate the entitlement of. the Opp. Party in the light of the discussions and directions made in this foregoing paragraphs. The civil revision is accordingly disposed, of. No costs. Revision disposed of accordingly.