JUDGMENT 1. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, POCHAMPAD, HAS IMPUGNED THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATED 2-2-1996 IN CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS NOS. 188-93 OF 1996 WHEREBY THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS AND AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE ALLOWING THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN CLAIMING BENEFIT OF HIGHER SOLATIUM AND INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 23(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AS AMENDED (FOR SHORT "THE ACT"). 3. IT IS NOT DISPUTED, BEFORE US, THAT THE LANDS BELONGING TO THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND AN AWARD WAS MADE BY THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR ON 29-12-1975 IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED AS WELL AS COMPENSATION FOR THE TREES STANDING THEREON. REFERENCE WAS SOUGHT UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE ACT AND THE REFERENCE COURT, BY ITS JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31-3-1979, ENHANCED THE COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED, BUT AFFIRMED THE AWARD INSOFAR AS IT RELATED TO THE COMPENSATION FOR THE TREES. IN THE YEAR 1982, THE RESPONDENTS FILED APPLICATION FOR REVIEW CLAIMING ENHANCED COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE TREES. THE REFERENCE COURT, BY ITS ORDER DATED 31-12-1983, ALLOWED THE REVIEW APPLICATION AND GRANTED ENHANCED COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE TREES. THEREAFTER, IN THE YEAR 1991, THE RESPONDENTS FILED INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT CLAIMING BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF 1984. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE REFERENCE COURT WAS REVIEWED BY ITS ORDER DATED 31-12-1983 BY GRANTING ENHANCED COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE TREES. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENTS, THE DECREE FINALLY PASSED BY THE REFERENCE COURT WAS THE ONE PASSED ON 31-12-1983 VACATING THE DECREE EARLIER PASSED. RELYING UPON THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE DECREE WAS PASSED BY THE REFERENCE. COURT ON 31-12-1983, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 30 OF ACT 68 OF 1984, THE RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO SOLATIUM AT THE RATE OF THIRTY PER CENTUM ON THE MARKET VALUE INSTEAD OF FIFTEEN PER CENTUM, AS EARLIER AWARDED. THE CONTENTION WAS UPHELD BY THE REFERENCE COURT AND AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT BY ITS IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. THE CONTENTION WAS UPHELD BY THE REFERENCE COURT AND AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT BY ITS IMPUGNED ORDER. 4. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE DECREE OF THE REFERENCE COURT HAVING ATTAINED FINALITY SO FAR AS COMPENSATION PAYABLE FOR THE LANDS WAS CONCERNED, THE ORDER OF REVIEW ONLY MODIFIED THAT PART OF THE DECREE WHICH RELATED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE TREES. THEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT CLAIM HIGHER SOLATIUM ON THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT IN SUSHIL KUMAR SEN V. STATE OF BIHAR1 AND KUNHAYAMMED V. STATE OF KERALA2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A DECREE IS TO VACATE THE DECREE PASSED. THE DECREE THAT IS SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED ON REVIEW, WHETHER IT MODIFIES, REVERSES OR CONFIRMS THE DECREE ORIGINALLY PASSED, IS A NEW DECREE SUPERSEDING THE ORIGINAL ONE. THE SAME PRINCIPLE WAS REITERATED IN KUNHAYAMMED2. 6. HAVING REGARD TO THESE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER, PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT. THESE APPEALS ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED, BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. 7. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.