accepted by the Reference Court and confirmed by the High Court. The Special Deputy Collector, however, felt aggrieved by the concurrent findings namely that of the Reference Court and the High Court, hence, approached the Supreme Court. The Special Deputy Collector contended before the Supreme Court that decree of the Reference Court had attained finality so far as compensation payable for the land was concerned, and the review order merely modified the compensation for trees, hence according to him, Chakali Linga could not have claimed higher solatium on compensation payable in respect of the land. It is in such context, the Supreme Court reiterating the settled principle of law and referring to the decision in Sushil Kumar Sen Vs. State of Bihar6 and Kunhayammed & Ors. (supra) held that the law is well settled that the effect of allowing an application for review of a decree is to vacate the decree passed. It was held that the decree that is subsequently passed on review, whether it modifies, reverses or confirms the decree originally passed, is a new decree superseding the original one. Applying such principles of law, the Court repelled the contention of the Special Deputy Collector and dismissed the appeals, upholding Chakali Linga’s contention. In my opinion, this decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, to accept the petitioners’ contention that the original award of the Reference Court dated 15 February 1984 had merged with the modified award dated 5 September 1994.
