JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-Union of India, through the Defence Estate Officer, Bikaner challenging order and decree dated 22.5.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Sriganganagar in CO No. 2/1998-Brij Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. whereby application filed by respondent-claimants under Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. was accepted and the amount of compensation mentioned in order dated 2.4.1998 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 155/1993 was directed to be read as "rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand" instead of "rupees Fourteen Lacs" and accordingly revised decree was to be prepared. 2. As per facts of the case, in Civil Misc. Reference Case No. 155/1993, the , Court held that 50 bighas land of the claimants acquired by the State Government was 'command land' and accordingly, vide order dated 2.4.1998 ordered payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per bigha from the date of notification dated 29.9.1989 amounting to Rs. 14,00,000/- with Rs. 4,20,000/- towards 30% solatium as also Rs. 5,59,000/- additional compensation amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In this manner the Court awarded payment of Rs. 20,79,000/- towards compensation against acquisition of land of the respondent-claimants. 3. The Court also granted interest on the amount of awarded compensation, at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from 13.4.1991 and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter. The respondent-claimants filed an application under Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. stating therein that as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the interest granted by the Court is payable on total amount of compensation but by error, in the order dated 2.4.1998 amount of compensation for payment of interest was mentioned as Rs. 14,00,000/- instead of Rs. 20,79,000/- and therefore, it was prayed that this error should be rectified. 4. The learned Court below vide impugned order dated 22.5.1999 allowed the application and ordered for preparation of revised decree accordingly. Aggrieved thereby, the Union of India has filed present appeal. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the material on record, the order impugned and the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent. 6. 4. The learned Court below vide impugned order dated 22.5.1999 allowed the application and ordered for preparation of revised decree accordingly. Aggrieved thereby, the Union of India has filed present appeal. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the material on record, the order impugned and the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent. 6. In the context, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. UOI reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 held that the interest granted under Sections 34 and 28 is payable on solatium also as the "amount awarded" in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 means the aggregate amount of compensation calculated in accordance with provisions of all the sub-section of Section 23 and hence, includes solatium. The intention of the Legislature is to ensure that the amount calculated under Section 23 reaches the person concerned at the time of passing of award or of taking over possession of the land and any delay in making such payment entities the person to receive interest on whole amount including solatium. 7. Further in the case of Jaya Chandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Rayagada reported in (,2005) 9 SCC 123 , their Lordships of the Apex Court held that in law there does not exist any bar on Reference Court to review its , earlier order if there exists an error apparent on the face of the record in terms of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. and such a jurisdiction cannot be denied to the Reference Court. The Act of 1894 is a beneficial statute and thus, the benefits arising hereunder cannot ordinarily be denied to a claimant except on strong and cogent reasons. 8. In view of aforesaid explicit law on the issue laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, I find myself in agreement with the analysis of facts and ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned Court below in impugned order dated 22.5.1999 and hence, 1 do not feel persuaded to intervene in this appeal. 9. In the result, the instant appeal lacks in merits and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******