( 1 ) ALL these Civil Revision Applications are disposed of by this common judgment as the question involved in all these Revision applications is the same. State of Gujarat has preferred these Revision applications against the impugned common order dt. 2-8-1989 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot District at Gondal passed below exh. 1 in Civil Misc. Applns. Nos. 104 of 1988 to 108 of 1988, 21 of 1989 to 33 of 1989, 35 of 1985, 52 of 1989 to 55 of 1989. The learned Extra Asstt. Judge allowed all applications and modified the earlier judgment passed by his predecessor in his office in Review Application to the effect that the respondent claimants in each applications be awarded additional amount at the rate of 12% of the market value of the land per annum for the entire period beginning from the issuance of preliminary notification upto the award of the Collector or the taking of the possession of the land whichever is earlier.

( 2 ) MR. K. C. Shah, learned A. G. P. appearing for the State has contended before me that once the review applications have been granted earlier by the learned Extra Assistant Judge by his impugned common order dated 15-3-1988, the second review application to modify the said order passed in review application, is barred by the provisions of Order 47 Rule 9 C. P. C. He has further submitted that the claimants may have many other remedies to challenge the earlier order passed by the learned assistant Judge before appropriate forum. But second review application to review the earlier order passed in review application is not permissible under the law.

( 3 ) HE has further submitted that by the earlier order dt. 15-3-1988, two prayers prayed for in the review application, have been granted, but the 3rd prayer, which is prayed for in the present application was not granted. That amounts to refusing to grant the prayer. Therefore, that order ought to have been challenged by way of any other remedy but not by way of filing review application before the same Court.

( 4 ) FOR considering the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Shah, few facts are required to be stated. In Land References which were decided on 14-2-1983 by the learned assistant Judge review applications were filed under Sec. 114 C. P. C. and under Order 47 Rule 1 C. P. C. In the said review applications, a prayer was made to review the earlier order on account of the amendment in Sec. 23 (1) (A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 giving retrospective effect. Before the learned Assistant Judge 3 prayers were made in the review applications by each claimant in all the Land Reference Cases, viz. , (1) to pay solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value instead of 15%, (2) interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till expiry of the period of one year and thereafter interest at the rate of 15% per annum till its realisation and (3) the claimant may be awarded additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent of the market value of the land per annum for the entire period beginning from the date of issue of preliminary notification upto the award of the Collector or the taking of possession of the land whichever is earlier. From the impugned order dt. 15-3-1988 which is annexed with these revision applications, it is clear that the learned Assistant Judge, Gondal was in full agreement with the contentions raised in the review applications and he was of the view that the prayers made in the review applications were required to be granted. For the same the learned Asstt. Judge has relied upon several judgments of different High Courts, Supreme Court and also of the Federal Court and allowed the review applications and accordingly, modified the award in Land Acquisition Cases and corrected to the effect that the claimant be awarded solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value instead of 15% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the taking of the possession till expiry of one y