- (1.) AS identical questions of law & facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the indicated two revision petitions, arising out of the same impugned order, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition.
(2.) THE epitome of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner -State of Punjab had acquired the land of respondents and other co -owners for public purposes under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as "the LA Act").
(3.) HAVING completed all the codal formalities, the Land Acquisition Collector announced the award of compensation on 31.3.1976. The reference petitions filed by the landowners u/s 18 of the LA Act were decided by the District Judge, vide judgment dated 28.2.1990, on the basis of previous judgment of this Court, which had already attained the finality. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the District Judge while deciding the reference petitions u/s 18 allowed all the statutory benefits under the un -amended LA Act, ignoring the provisions of the amended LA Act in respect of solatium at the rate of 30%, interest and additional benefits. It necessitated the respondent -landowners to file the applications for correction of judgment, so as to incorporate all the statutory benefits in terms of the new amended LA Act, invoking the provisions of Sections 152 and 153 CPC. The petitioner -State vaguely refuted the claim of respondent -landowners.;