Judgment : The main appeal LAAS. No.453 of 2005 filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 27.4.2011. This application under Section 152 of CPC is filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal with a prayer to amend the date of deemed notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as 2.3.1986 in place of 30.9.1996 in the judgment dated 27.4.2011. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is pleaded that the deemed section 4 (1) notification was mentioned wrongly in the judgment as 30.9.1996 instead of 2.3.1986 and that the same had been noticed while preparing the necessary application for payment of interest in terms of the said judgment. Thus it is prayed that the mistake in the date of notification under Section 4 (1) may be corrected and the judgment may be amended under Section 152 of C.P.C. Opposing the said petition, the 1st respondent – Singareni Collieries Company Limited – filed a counter affidavit contending that any correction of date of notification by way of amendment at this stage would necessarily require the consequential amendment of the observations of this Court in the last para and penultimate para of the judgment relating to the claim for rent and damages prior to the notification. It is also contended that the petitioners cannot take advantage of both the order in W.P.No.26664 of 1995 as also the subsequent law that has been laid down by the Supreme Court and that the petitioner having chosen to take recourse to file an application before the Collector for damages cannot fall back on the order in W.P.No.26664 of 1995. We have heard Sri V. Ravinder Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri J. Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein. As could be seen from the material available on record, the possession of the land in question was taken over by the 1st respondent company in the year 1963 without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner herein along with other claimants filed W.P.No.26664 of 1995 challenging the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation even after more than 30 years. The petitioner herein along with other claimants filed W.P.No.26664 of 1995 challenging the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation even after more than 30 years. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 30.9.1996 directing the 1st respondent company to conduct award enquiry for determination of market value prevalent as on 2.3.1986 and pay the same to the claimants together with additional benefits as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act should be deemed to have been issued on 2.3.1986. Admittedly the said order has become final and in pursuance thereof award dated 31.7.2000 came to be passed determining the compensation on the basis of the market value prevalent as on 2.3.1986. When the petitioner herein/one of the claimants, sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation, the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, by judgment and decree dated 8.9.2004 in O.P.No.83 of 2000 enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,500/-to 40,000/-. The Reference Court has also awarded 30% solatium and additional amount at 12% per annum from the date of notification to the date of award i.e., from 2.3.1986 to 31.7.2000 apart from interest on enhanced compensation at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year i.e., from 9.7.1964 to 5.1.1965 and thereafter at 15% per annum till the realisation of the enhanced compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Reference Court, the 1st respondent herein filed LAAS.No.453 of 2005. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal in part following the decision of the Supreme Court in R.L. JAIN v. DDA ( (2004) 4 SCC 79 ) wherein it was held that if the possession is taken prior to the notification under Section 4 (1), the claimants are not entitled to any interest for such period. Accordingly, interest awarded by the Reference Court for the period prior to issuance of Section 4 (1) notification was set aside and it was further held: The claimants are entitled for rent and damages for taking possession of the land prior to issuance of notification which is to be determined by the Collector and the claimants are entitled to take appropriate steps in that regard. However in page-1 of the judgment while narrating the facts and in page-11 of the judgment while considering Point No.2 namely whether the claimant is entitled to interest prior to issuance of Section 4 (1) notification, the date of draft notification was mentioned as 30.09.1996. Hence the present application under Section 152 of CPC for correction of the said date. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by either party, we do not find any substance in the objection raised on behalf of the 1st respondent as to the maintainability of the petition under Section 152 of C.P.C. We have observed that in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the judgment and decree of the Reference Court, the date of 4 (1) notification was mentioned as 2.3.1986. However, for the first time in the judgment of this Court in LAAS.No.453 of 2005 there appears to be a variation and the date of Section 4(1) notification was mentioned as 30.09.1996. We have already noticed that this Court held in W.P.No.26664 of 1995 that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act should be deemed to have been issued on 2.3.1986. The said order became final and the awards were passed by both the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court on the basis of the market value prevalent on 2.3.1986 as declared in W.P.No.26664 of 1995. Nowhere in the record, the date of notification was taken as 30.09.1996. In fact 30.09.1996 is the date on which W.P.No.26664 of 1995 was disposed of by this Court. Therefore, apparently the date of Section 4 (1) notification mentioned in the judgment of this Court in LAAS.No.453 of 2005 as 30.09.1996 was an inadvertent mistake or error. Nowhere in the record, the date of notification was taken as 30.09.1996. In fact 30.09.1996 is the date on which W.P.No.26664 of 1995 was disposed of by this Court. Therefore, apparently the date of Section 4 (1) notification mentioned in the judgment of this Court in LAAS.No.453 of 2005 as 30.09.1996 was an inadvertent mistake or error. However, it is contended on behalf of the 1st respondent that if the correction as sought by the petitioner is allowed, the petitioner would take advantage of both the orders in W.P.No.26664 of 1995 as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.L. JAIN’S case (1 supra) and therefore it cannot be treated as a mere clerical mistake warranting correction in exercise of powers conferred under Section 152 of C.P.C. In R.L. JAIN’S case (1 supra) it was held that the claimants are not entitled to interest where possession is taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) since it was done dehors the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. However it was further added that in such cases it would be just and equitable to determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled while determining the compensation for the land acquired. To be more precise, the relevant paragraph from the said decision may be extracted: 18.) In a case where the landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the landowner. It is fully open for the landowner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. The provisions of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded. The provisions of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded. Admittedly this is a case where the possession was taken long back in the year 1963 without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, this Court while allowing W.P.No.26664 of 1995 held that the Section 4 (1) notification should be deemed to have been issued on 2.3.1986 and there was a direction to determine the compensation on the basis of the market value prevalent as on 2.3.1986. Accordingly, on the basis of the said date, the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Reference Court passed the awards. The 1st respondent herein filed LAAS. No.453 of 2005 not on the ground that the determination of compensation on the basis of the market value prevalent on 2.3.1986 was bad, but the contention was that the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court was not just and reasonable. It was also contended that the interest awarded by the Reference Court for the period prior to issuance of Section 4(1) notification was contrary to the law declared in R.L. JAIN’S case (1 supra). In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.L.JAIN’S case (1 supra), the Division Bench allowed LAAS. No.453 of 2005 and set aside the order of the Reference Court to the extent of awarding interest for the period prior to issuance of Section 4 (1) notification. However, in terms of the said decision in R.L.JAIN’S case (1 supra) wherein it was held that it would be just and equitable to determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner was entitled while determining the compensation in a case where possession was taken prior to the issuance of Section 4 (1) notification, the Division Bench granted the very same relief to the claimants holding that they are entitled for rent and damages for the period prior to issuance of Section 4 (1) notification. Having regard to the admitted fact that the possession was taken long back in the year 1963 dehors the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and that the order of this Court in W.P.No.26664 of 1995 to determine the compensation on the basis of a deemed notification taking the date as 2.3.1986 became final and the 1st respondent/beneficiary has never chosen to challenge the same, the objection now raised on behalf of the 1st respondent for correction of the date of Section 4 (1) notification as 2.3.1986 is wholly untenable. In fact, the date of Section 4 (1) notification mentioned as 30.09.1996 in the judgment of this Court appears to be without any basis. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is the date on which W.P.No.26664 of 1995 was disposed of by this Court. At any rate, it is un-understandable as to how it would be advantageous to the petitioner if the date of the notification is substituted as 2.3.1986 in the place of 30.09.1996. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, we are convinced that it is nothing but a mistake on the part of the Court in mentioning the date of Section 4(1) notification in the judgment dated 27.04.2011 in LAAS.No.453 of 2005. We are also satisfied that it is an inadvertent error which is apparent on the face of the record. This Court has a duty to see that the record represents the correct state of affairs and therefore we deem it appropriate to correct the error that occurred in the judgment in exercise of the power conferred under Section 152 of C.P.C. so as to set right the record. For the aforesaid reasons, the date of Section 4 (1) notification which was wrongly mentioned in the judgment in LAAS.No.453 of 2005 as 30.09.1996 shall be corrected as 2.3.1986. Accordingly, the application is allowed as prayed for and the date of Section 4 (1) notification shall stand substituted as 2.3.1986 wherever it occurred in the judgment in LAAS.No.453 of 2005, dated 27.4.2011. No costs.