JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - This revision is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack passed in Misc. Case No. 183/85 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for correction of the decree and to review the order passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 137/75. 2. The facts leading to this revision application may be shortly stated as follows: A0. 27 decimals of land in Mouza Gadkan was acquired by a notification u/s 4(1) the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 8-4-64 for the purposes of Engineering Research Institute at Bhubaneswar. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. The Subordinate Judge, Cut tack on a reference u/s 18 of the Act in Land Acquisition case No. 137/75 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 43,000/- per acre by his award dated 31-3-1980. The said award was challenged in this Court in First Appeal No. 310 of 1980. A large number of First Appeals involving the rate of compensation for the lands acquired for the very same purposes were taken up for hearing analogously and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25-2-1982. This Court set aside the awards passed in all those cases and remitted back all the cases including the one in question in this revision directing the Subordinate Judge to pass fresh award after calculating the compensation payable on the basis on of the observations made in the judgment. It may be noted that this Court in the aforesaid judgment did not determine the compensation payable for different categories of land involved in those appeals, but merely indicated the basis of the determination of the compensation by the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties afresh passed an award in conformity with Section 26 of the Act calculating the compensation payable on the guidelines and the basis indicated by this Court. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) came into force with effect from 24-9-84. The Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties afresh passed an award in conformity with Section 26 of the Act calculating the compensation payable on the guidelines and the basis indicated by this Court. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) came into force with effect from 24-9-84. u/s 30(2) of the Amending Act the provisions of the amended Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Act were made applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on 30th April, 1982 or filed subsequent to the said date whether before the Collector or before the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court even if they had been finally terminated before the enactment of the amending Act. Section 23(2) of the unamended Act provided for a solatium to be awarded which was a sum of 15 per cent of the market value of the land in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. By virtue of the amendment of the said section the words "fifteen percentum" was substituted by the words "thirty percentum". Section 28 of the unamended Act provided for payment of interest on excess compensation at the rate of six percentum which was enhanced to nine percentum in the amending Act. The Subordinate Judge having passed the award after remand on 15-5-1982, the Petitioner in this case made an application to the Subordinate Judge under Sections 151 and 152 read with Order 47, Rule 1, CPC praying for the enhanced compensation and the interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties on the said application came to the view that the provisions of the amending Act would not apply in this cases inasmuch as it was the High Court who finally disposed of the matter on 25-2-1982 by deciding the basis for calculating the compensation and remitted back the matter merely for the purposes of recalculating the compensation on that basis. The Petitioner challenges the said order of the Subordinate Judge in the revision. 3. The scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Amending Act was considered by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Bhag Singh and Others Vs. The Petitioner challenges the said order of the Subordinate Judge in the revision. 3. The scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Amending Act was considered by the Supreme Court in a decision reported in Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh in which case it has been held, overruling the earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in K. Kamalajammanniavaru (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer that the provisions of the amended Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the act are applicable to all proceedings for determination of the amount of compensation pending on 30th April, 1982 or filed subsequent to the said date whether before the Collector of before the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court. Applying the said principle in the present case the amended Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act would be applicable to the benefit of the Petitioner if it is held that the matter of determination of the compensation was pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge on 30-4-1982. It has already been stated that the High Court in First Appeal No. 310/80 which was heard and disposed of along with many other appeals of similar nature on 25-2-1982 did not determine the actual compensation payable to the Appellants in those appeals, but merely indicated the guidelines to be followed by the Subordinate Judge in determining the compensation,. The award of the Court which was impugned in the First Appeal was set aside by the High Court in the said judgment. It is not the case where the High Court in its judgment replaced the award by making suitable modifications therein. Section 28 of the Act of 1984 is explicit in its terms and requires that every award under Part III of the Act shall be in writing signed by the Judge and shall specify the amount awarded under First clause of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act and also the amounts if any respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same Sub-section together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts. The judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No. 310/80 does not satisfy the requirements of Section 26(1) of the Act to be termed as an award. The judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No. 310/80 does not satisfy the requirements of Section 26(1) of the Act to be termed as an award. The award which was the subject matter of the said appeal was, as already stated, set aside by the High Court. Thus what the Subordinate Judge was required to do after the matter was remitted back, was, to pass a fresh award following the principles indicated by the High Court for calculating the compensation. I would, therefore, held that the question of determination of compensation was pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge on 30-4-82 and the same was disposed of by passing an award u/s 26(1) of the Act on 15-5-82. The award which was passed by the Subordinate Judge on 15-5-82 would necessarily be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act. It is, therefore, idle to contend that the Subordinate Judge merely made mathematical calculation after the case was remitted back and that the determination of the compensation was finally made by the High Court, in the First Appeal. 4. It has been held by this Court in First Appeal No. 143/73 that in such circumstances an application for review of the decree is permissible under law as Section 151 or Section 152 of the CPC would not apply. It, therefore, follows that the Subordinate Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by rejecting the application of the, Petitioner on a mistaken impression that the compensation payable for the land in question stood finally determined by the High Court prior to 30-4-82. 5. In the result, therefore, the civil revision is allowed. The Subordinate Judge is directed to modify the decree by awarding higher solatium and interest as provided in the amended Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act of 1984. No costs. Final Result : Allowed