This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul rejecting an application for review under Order 47, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by a claimant in Land Acquisition proceedings on a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is unnecessary to go into the merits of the application for review. It is stated that the statutory solatium and interest have not been provided, by some inadvertence.

The learned Subordinate Judge has taken the view that as the proceeding before him was on a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, he would have no-jurisdiction to review the matter even if there should be any error apparent on the face of the record. In this the learned Subordinate Judge purports to follow a decision of this Court in Mulambath Kunhamed v. Parakat Kathiri Kutti1.The judgment was rendered in 1916 prior to certain amendments of the Land Acquisition Act made in 1921. Even in that judgment of the two learned Judges who constituted the Bench, Ayling, J., has expressed the view that a review would lie whereas the other learned Judge Srinivasa Ayyangar, J., is of the view that a review would not lie. The ba