DR. M. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) AS the issues raised in these two petitions are inter-connected, I propose todispose of both the petitions by this common order. ( 2 ) THE land of the petitioner was acquired by the Government under the Landacquisition Act and the award of the Collector was passed on 10. 11. 1981. Thepetitioner preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Acton the ground that the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioner was on thelower side. The said reference petition was registered as LAC No. 198/1980. ( 3 ) THE said reference petition was considered and decided by the reference courtnamely the Additional District Judge on 31. 3. 1984. A copy of the judgment of thereference Court is placed on record which would indicate that the reference Courtenhanced the market value of the land and fixed the same at Rs. 3,800. 00per bigha. The reference court held that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement @ Rs. 2,300. 00per bigha and further entitled to solatium for compulsory acquisition @ 15% andfurther entitled to interest under section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (A and V) Act onthe enhancement value. It was also held that they would further be entitled to interestunder Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced compensation fromthe date of taking possession till the date of compensation in the court. ( 4 ) THE Land Acquisition Act came to be amended in 1984. By way of the aforesaidamendment Section 30 titled as transitory provision was added in the amended Act. Basing claim on the amended provision of the Act the petitioner filed an applicationunder Section 30 of the amended Act read with Section 151,152 and 153 before theadditional District Judge on 8. 12. 1989 seeking modification in the judgment/decreedated 31. 1. 1984 claiming benefit of the amended Act particularly under the provisionsof Section 23 (1) (a), 23 and 28 of the amended Act. The aforesaid petition wasconsidered by the trial court and by the order dated 11. 9. 1998 the said applicationwas dismissed holding that the petitioner was not entitled to such modification in thelight of various decisions of the Supreme Court which are referred to in the saiddecision. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner. 9. 1998 the said applicationwas dismissed holding that the petitioner was not entitled to such modification in thelight of various decisions of the Supreme Court which are referred to in the saiddecision. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted during the course ofarguments that in view of the settled position of law he is not pressing the appeal sofar benefit under Section 23 (1 ) (a) of the Act is concerned. He however, submittedthat he is pressing the appeal so as to receive the benefit as provided for under theamended Act namely Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Act. He submitted that thejudgment /decree dated 11. 11. 1983 passed by the reference court did not attainfinality till the benefits of the Amendment Act were incorporated therein. He alsosubmitted that the case of the petitioner was fully covered by the amended provisionof Section 30 (2) of the amanded Act and in support of his contention he relied uponthe decision in the case of K. S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala; reported in JT1994 (6) SC 182. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent however, submitted that the plearaised by the petitioner is no longer res Integra in view of several decisions of thesupreme Court. He relied upon the decisions in Union of India Vs. Rangila Ram; (1995) 5 SCC 585 , Bai Shakriben Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer; (1996)State of Maharashtra Vs. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, reported in (1995) 3 SCC316, Union of India Vs, Swaran Singh, (1996) 5 SCC 501 and State of Punjabvs. Babu Singh; 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 406. ( 7 ) IN Maharau Srawan Hatkar s case (supra) it was held by the Supreme Courtthat once a decree is made under Section 26 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Civilcourt is left to correct only either clerical or arithmetical mistakes as envisagedexpressly under Section 13-A of the Act or under Section 152 of the Code of Civilprocedure. It was also held that through Section 151 Civil Procedure Code given inherent power tothe court, it was intended only to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to meetthe ends of Justice. It was also held that through Section 151 Civil Procedure Code given inherent power tothe court, it was intended only to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to meetthe ends of Justice. On the facts of the said case the Supreme Court held that thecase inhand was not a case of the nature of either under Section 26 (2) or Section152 or 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Union of India Vs. Swaran Singh, (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that after award and decree of referencecourt became final before coming into force of the Amendment Act, Reference Courtor High Court has no Jurisdiction to entertain independent application under Sections151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and pass order granting enhancedsolatium in terms of the Amendment Act. It was further held that where the High Courtpassed such order under Sections 151 or 152 Civil Procedure Code the same would be withoutjurisdiction and would be a nullity and can be challenged at any stage. ( 8 ) THE trial court also relied upon the decisions of Maharau Srawan Kumarhatkar (supra) while coming to the conclusion in the impugned order. In view of theaforesaid settled legal position of law the trial court could not have exercised thepowers under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure which jurisdictionwas sought to be invoked by the petitioner herein. The trial court rightly held that afterthe award and decree of the reference court became final before coming into force ofthe Amendment Act reference court could not have exercised jurisdiction andgranted enhanced solatium and interest in terms of the Amendment Act. ( 9 ) IN the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, I find no merit in thesepetitions and the same are dismissed.