JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the landowner against order dated 22.08.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge-(I), Shimla, H.P., in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11-S/6 of 2018, titled as Mohinder Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby application preferred by the landowner under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') for amendment/rectification of clerical mistake in award/judgment dated 10.11.2017 passed by the said Court in LAC Petition RBT No. 2-S/4 of 2016, titled as Mohinder Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, has been dismissed. 2. Being aggrieved by determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector, landowner Mohinder Chand had preferred Reference Petition under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which has been decided on 10.11.2017 by granting following reliefs:-- "37. In view of my findings on aforesaid issues, reference petition is succeeded and is hereby answered. The petitioner is held to be entitled for enhancement of compensation of land @ Rs. 19,196/- per square meters and Rs. 3,78,187/- on account of Rs. 5 apple plants. Besides this, the petitioner is also entitled for statutory benefits which are as under:- (a) he shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% per annum on the enhanced market value of the land assessed herein above; (b) he shall also be entitled to additional compensation @ 12% per annum under section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, till the date of award made by the Collector i.e. 20.08.2011 and (c) he shall be entitled to interest on market value assessed under section 23(1) of the Act, solatium, the additional acquisition charges worked out under Section 23(1A) of the Act @ 9% per annum from 20.08.2011 to 19.08.2012 i.e. for the period of one year and @ 15% per annum from 19.08.2012 till the amount payment/deposit of the amount of compensation as assessed above in the court." 3. In Clause (c) of the relief, learned Additional District Judge has held that landowner shall be entitled to the interest on market value under Section 23(1A) of the Act @ 9% per annum from 20.08.2011 to 19.08.2012, which was payable to the landowner under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking over possession of the land. 4. In Clause (c) of the relief, learned Additional District Judge has held that landowner shall be entitled to the interest on market value under Section 23(1A) of the Act @ 9% per annum from 20.08.2011 to 19.08.2012, which was payable to the landowner under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking over possession of the land. 4. It is settled position that in the case, like present one, possession for the purpose of acquisition has to be taken from the date of issuance of notification under Section. 4 of the Act. It is also settled that date of last publication of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act is the relevant date of publication of the said date for this purpose. 5. It is apparent from record that in present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 25.07.2008, which was published in the State Rajpatra on 27.08.2008 and in two daily News Papers i.e. Indian Express and Dainik Bhaskar on 08.08.2008 and lastly, public notices were circulated in the locality on 23.10.2008. Therefore, relevant date of last publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act is 23.10.2008. 6. The Reference Court in its Award in para 35 itself has held that landowner is entitled for interest from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act but has mentioned incorrect date i.e. 28.07.2008. It is an undisputed fact that last date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, in present case, is 23.10.2008. Therefore, relevant date, as evident from record, from which landowner has been entitled for interest is 23.10.2008. 7. Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, on the ground that proceedings have been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and whole of the amount stands deposited on 30.04.2019 in Appeal before the High Court and, therefore,. Reference Court has no power to make any amendment/rectification in the impugned judgment. In my opinion, staying of execution and operation of the impugned judgment in Appeal does not dis-entitle the Reference Court from rectifying its clerical/typographical mistake/error. 8. The Reference Court has committed a mistake by holding that staying of execution and operation of the impugned Award by the High Court in an appeal preferred by either party, dis-entitles the Reference Court from correcting clerical or arithmetical error. 9. 8. The Reference Court has committed a mistake by holding that staying of execution and operation of the impugned Award by the High Court in an appeal preferred by either party, dis-entitles the Reference Court from correcting clerical or arithmetical error. 9. Another ground, cited for dismissing the application is that mistake/error pointed out in the application does not seem to be a clerical and arithmetical error and further that Reference Court has passed impugned award very diligently and elaborately and the interest, as mentioned in the award, is correct and according to the Reference Court, petitioner was aggrieved by rate of interest and the period or date, from which it has been granted and, therefore, application has been dismissed with liberty to petitioner to agitate it the appeal (RFA). 10. Findings returned by the Reference Court that mistake pointed out by the petitioner does not appear to be clerical or arithmetical error is also factually incorrect. 11. In para-18 of the Award date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act has been mentioned as 25.07.2008 and in para-35 of the award date of notification under Section 4 of the Act has been mentioned as 28.07.2008. Reference Court in para-35 of the Award has mentioned it as 28.07.2008 and at the time of granting relief instead of this date the Reference Court has mentioned the date from which landowner shall be entitled for interest under Section 28 of the Act as 20.08.2011. Whereas last date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, is 23.10.2008. 12. Reference Court, in para 35, in principle has decided that landowner shall be entitled for interest from date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. On perusal of record, as discussed supra, it is evident that there is clerical error/typographical error in mentioning the relevant date, which should have been rectified by the Reference Court under Section 152 of CPC. 13. On perusal of record, as discussed supra, it is evident that there is clerical error/typographical error in mentioning the relevant date, which should have been rectified by the Reference Court under Section 152 of CPC. 13. In view of above, present petition is allowed and disposed of and impugned order dated 22.08.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge-(I), Shimla, H.F., in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 11-S/6 of 2018, titled as Mohinder Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, is set aside and it is observed that for extending statutory benefit under the Act the date of publication of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, i.e. last date of publication 23.10.2008 shall be relevant date and, therefore, matter is remanded back to the Reference Court with direction to rectify the error in para-35 as well as in para-37 of the impugned award, in aforesaid terms on or before 31.12.2020. 14. Parties are directed to obtain correct certified copy of award and place it on record of Appeal i.e. RFA No. 381 of 2018 pending in this Court. 15. Copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Reference Court with original record summoned in RFA No. 381 of 2018 enabling it to comply with the direction. After carrying out necessary corrections record shall be remitted by the Reference Court to this Court for adjudication of RFA No. 381 of 2018. Petition alongwith pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.