R. Banumathi, J.

1. These Review Applications are filed to review the common judgment in A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 dated 28.7.2003.

2. Total extent of 156.78 acres of land in Erode and Soorampatty villages of Erode Taluk were acquired for the construction of houses under the Low Income Group and Middle Income Group Schemes and also for construction of office of the District Collector as well as District Court buildings. Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.2/- per square feet and after deducting 20% towards development charges, fixed the market value at Rs.1.35 per sq. ft. and passed Award No.1 of 1980 dated 29.2.1980. In L.A.O.P.Nos.13, 14 and 16 of 1984, References were made in which the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.7/- per square feet.

3. A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 and Cross Objection Nos.29 and 59 of 1995 and Cross Objection Nos.25 to 31 of 2003 were filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Claimants respectively against the award passed by the Reference Court in L.A.O.P.Nos.13, 14 and 16 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Erode enhancing the compensation at Rs.7/- per square feet In the appeals, the Division Bench of this Court (one of us was a member – RBIJ) pointed out that the original Reference was under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act and the compensation was deposited in the Sub-Court, Erode only under Section 30 of the Act. Thereafter, as per the order in I.A.Nos.181, 183 and 185 of 1987 dated 3.12.1987, Reference was amended under Section 18 of the Act instead of Reference under Section 30 of the Act.

4. Observing that the Reference made under Section 30 which was amended to one under Section 18, the Reference Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the compensation, in A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:-"12. .... we are of the view that the course adopted by the learned Sub Judge is to be held as one without jurisdiction and the learned Judge is not competent to go into the question. In the preamble portion of the judgment, which is not paragraphed, the learned Judge has stated that the Land Acquisition Officer has sent Award No.1 of 1980 dated 22.9.1980 under Section 30 and consequently, the award was taken on file and while so, the claimants have filed the applications to enquire the said Reference under Section 18 of the Act and therefore, the request of the Collector has been altered into one under Section 18 of the Act. It is not clear whether notice was ordered to the appellant. The copy of the order in I.A. is not seen in the files and none of the parties are unable to produce a copy. ........

22. ..... The Reference under Section 30 of the Act, which was amended to one under Section 18 by the Land Acquisition Officer. ...... Therefore, the decree awarding compensation for 3.48.0 hectares, in our view, will be beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court. A specific objection was taken in the grounds, but no reply or explanation is offered per contra. Hence, we hold that the award could be only in respect of the lands that were acquired under Section 4(1) of the Act and referred under Section 30 of the Act, and the determination of compensation for any lands other than those referred is not sustainable and to that extent, the appeals were allowed."

5. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Review Petitioners contended that the appeals preferred by the Revenue Divisional Officer have been dismissed on the ground that Reference Court has no jurisdiction to amend the Reference from Section 30 to one of Reference under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel contended that Review Petitioners had not made any representation to make Reference under Section 30 and they made representation for making Reference under Section 18 only. Drawing our attention to the typed set of papers filed by the learned Special Government Pleader, learned Senior Counsel submitted that at the tim