H.R.Panwar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned.
(2.) All these appeals arising out of same order, therefore, they can conveniently be disposed of by this common order.
(3.) In the proceeding for execution of award dated 13-12-1989 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, the executing court vide order impugned dt. 1/10/1993, passed an order granting interest under Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act holding that the amount of interest which was allowed earlier vide award dt. 13/12/1989 was granted under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant has taken a specific ground in the appeal that once the award has become final, the executing court will have no jurisdiction to amend or alter the award passed. A ground has also been taken in appeal that the executing court has no jurisdiction to amend the award at the stage of executing the award. The executing court can only execute the award or decree, as the case may be but cannot be permitted to alter the award or grant any relief beyond the award itself. 4 A perusal of the impugned order dt. 4-10-1993 clearly shows that the learned executing court (Civil Judge, Dungarpur) has modified the be award dt. 13-12-1989 and granted interest at the stage of the execution proceedings. It is settled law that the executing court or the reference court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree or the award, as the case may be, which has become final. Omission to award additional amount under Section 23 (1-a) and the interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. are not clerical and arithmetical mistake which could be corrected after passing of final award. From the order impugned, it is clear that interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded under Section 23 and not under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The executing court vide order impugned, held that the decree holder is entitled to additional interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification i.e. 30/ 6/1977. In my considered opinion, this part of order of the executing court is without jurisdiction and as such it is not sustainable. 5. The executing court in a similar case also modified the order on the very same date i.e. 4/10/1993 in the matter of execution case No. 9/ 90 Shiv Shanker v. State of Rajasthan against which the appellant State filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 90/94 before this court which was decided by this Court on 25/8/1999, whereby the order impugned therein dt. 4/10/1993 was set aside and appeal was allowed. The facts of the present cases are identical to that appeal and these appeals also deserve to be allowed. 6. Consequently, these appeals are allowed and the impugned order dt. 4/10/1993 is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. Appeals allowed.;