Judgment :- 1. The impugned order dated 23.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.143 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 by the third Additional Sub-Court, Madurai is being challenged in the present civil revision petition. 2. The second respondent herein as Land Acquisition Officer has acquired the land in question belonged to the first respondent herein and awarded a compensation and the first respondent has challenged the quantum of compensation and therefore, a reference has been made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the file of the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai and the same has been taken on file in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, has fixed Rs.870/- as compensation per cent. Further, the Land Acquisition Tribunal has directed to pay 9% interest from the date of passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Against the interest clause passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, the present petition has been filed under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in I.A.No.143 of 2010. The Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has dismissed the same stating that the relief sought for in the petition is not legally maintainable under the said section. Against the dismissal order passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai, the present civil revision petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/2nd respondent in L.A.O.P.No.1/2008. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the first respondent is entitled get 9% interest for the award amount only from the date of taking possession. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has erroneously awarded 9% interest from the date of passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer/2nd respondent herein. Under the said circumstances, the petition in I.A.No.143 of 2010 has been filed under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore, the order passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant has contended that as per Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the concerned District Collector is entitled to take possession after passing of the award in question. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant has contended that as per Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the concerned District Collector is entitled to take possession after passing of the award in question. Under the said circumstances, the District Collector has taken possession of the property in dispute immediately after passing of the award and not on 12.05.2008 as stated on the side of the revision petitioner and further, the present petition is not legally maintainable under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and further the error alleged to have been committed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai is not an accidental slip and the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai, after considering all the contentions raised on either side, has rightly dismissed the petition filed in I.A.No.143 of 2010 and therefore, the order passed in I.A.No.143 of 2010 is liable to be interfered with. 5. For considering the rival submissions made by either counsel, the court has to look into the provisions of Section 16 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 16 of the said Act reads as follows: “Power to take possession:-When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all encumbrances.” Section 28 of the said Act reads as follows: “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 per centum] per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court.” 6. As per the provision of Section 16 of the said Act, it is made clear that immediately after passing of an award in question, the concerned District Collector is empowered to take possession of the land acquired. As per Section 28 of the said Act, if any award is passed in excess by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, 9% interest can be awarded, from the date of taking possession of the land. 7. As per Section 28 of the said Act, if any award is passed in excess by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, 9% interest can be awarded, from the date of taking possession of the land. 7. From the conjoint reading of the said provisions, the following two points are made clear: a) The concerned District Collector is empowered to take possession of the land acquired immediately after passing of an award. b) Interest at the rate of 9% can be awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal only from the date of taking possession. 8. In the instant case, as pointed out earlier, the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3 Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has fixed Rs.870/- per cent by way of compensation and also directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% from the date of passing of the award in question. As per Section 16 of the said Act, possession can be taken only after passing of an award and further as per Section 18 of the said Act, 9% interest can be awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal only from the date of taking possession and not from the date of passing of an award. Therefore, it is needless to say that the interest clause mentioned in the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.1/2008 is nothing but an apparent error committed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai. 9. The present petition has been filed under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the same reads as follows: “Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders: Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.” 10. Even a cursory look of the said provision, it is pellucid that if any clerical or arithmetical mistake is found in judgments and decrees, the same can be corrected either by the concerned court of its own motion or on the basis of application filed by anyone of the parties. 11. The Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has dismissed I.A.No.143 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 mainly on the ground that the relief sought for in the present petition is not legally entertainable under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 11. The Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has dismissed I.A.No.143 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 mainly on the ground that the relief sought for in the present petition is not legally entertainable under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Considering the fact that the mistake committed in the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 cannot be considered as clerical or arithmetical mistake, the reason given by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai for dismissing I.A.No.143 of 2010 in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 is perfectly correct. But at the same time, this Court has to further look into the nature of the award passed with regard to interest clause in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008. This Court, being the High Court, is having administrative control over its subordinate courts. This court is having ample power to correct any mistake committed by the Subordinate Courts by exercising its administrative control or power. 12. In the instant case, as pointed out earlier, as per Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the concerned District Collector is empowered to take possession of the land acquired only after passing of an award and as per section 28 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Tribunal is empowered to pass interest at the rate of 9% only from the date of taking of possession and not from the date of passing of an award. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai, as per Section 28 of the said Act, is having power to award interest at the rate of 9% interest only from the date of taking of possession and not from the date of passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, it is needless to say that the interest clause passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 is totally absurd and in fact, the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has adopted apathetic approach in awarding interest as mentioned supra. Therefore, it is needless to say that the interest clause passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 is totally absurd and in fact, the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has adopted apathetic approach in awarding interest as mentioned supra. Even though the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional sub-Court, Madurai has adopted apathetic approach in awarding interest against the provision of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, this Court has to find out as to whether such kind of order can be executed by the first respondent herein. A person cannot be allowed to derive benefits on the basis of an act done due to crassitude of other. It is an admitted fact that the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai, without knowing the provision of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has erroneously awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai has lent its support so as to scoop the Governments exchequer illegally by the first respondent herein. Further the courts are bound to perform its duties only on the basis of written law and not on the basis of consetudinary. In the instant case, as taunted in many places, the interest clause mentioned in the award passed in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 is totally against the provision of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 13. Considering the fact that this Court is having overall administrative control or power over its subordinate courts and also considering that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai in L.A.O.P.No.1 of 2008 with regard to interest is totally absurd and also erroneous, it is needless to say that the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai can be directed to amend the interest clause as stated infra. 14. In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed without costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also closed and the Land Acquisition Tribunal/3rd Additional Sub-Court, Madurai is directed to find out the correct date of taking of possession and fix interest from that date.