JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J: Appeal by the owner of a land which came to be taken over by the State for the purpose of implementation of minor irrigation project as on 1.3.1974, but in respect of which, a notification under Section 4 was issued only on 29.1.1987, and after efforts by the owner, quantum of compensation payable by the State for acquiring such land though, was finalized in terms of the judgment and award passed by this Court in MFA No.4480/1996 decided on 14.8.2001, the benefit of this award is again disturbed and reduced by the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 10.11.2008 in Writ Petition No.3058 of 2007 filed by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Sirsi and aggrieved by this loss of quantum of compensation, though it had attained finality even as on 14.8.2001, the present appeal by the owner under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. 2. Brieffacts as noticed, lead to the quantification of the compensation amount by this Court in the owner's appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act whereby, it was quantified at Rs. 7,560/- per gunta in terms of the order passed in MFA No. 4480/1996 which came to be dismissed, but the cross appeal of the appellant for further enhancement was allowed by refixing the market value at. Rs.7,560/- per gunta, are not disputed. 3. While the matters attained finality in this way, the Land Acquisition Officer sought correction of the quantum of compensation payable to the owner by applying the principle of law laid down in the case of R.L. Jain deceased by L.Rs Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, (2004) 4 see 79, holding that the owners of lands, possession of which has been taken over on any day prior to the 4(1) Notification while, can claim damages or anyother compensation, cannot claim interest on the compensation amount from the date of dispossession till the date of 4(1) notification. The judgment and award in LAC No.8/1989 was sought to be reviewed and corrected by filing Misc. (Review) Petition No. 1/2006 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsi. 4. The judgment and award in LAC No.8/1989 was sought to be reviewed and corrected by filing Misc. (Review) Petition No. 1/2006 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsi. 4. The learned Judge of the reference Court found a stumbling block for reviewing his judgment and award as it had come to merge with the judgment and award passed by this Court in MFA No.4480/1996, and noticing the other tenable objections raised by the landowner dismissed the review petition in terms of the order dated 10.4.2006. 5. As against this order, Land Acquisition Officer preferred Writ Petition No.3058 of2007 before this Court. 6. Learned Single Judge examined the writ petition and being of the view that in terms of the law declared in R.L. Jain's case, landowners cannot claim interest on the compensation amount prior to the date of issue of 4(1) notification and applying this law, allowed the writ petition and also allowed the review petition filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC before the reference Court and directed the reference Court to amend the judgment and decree in LAC No.8/1989 in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court to deny interest at 9% p.a. on the quantum of enhanced compensation payable to the owner, one year subsequent to 1.3.1974 up to the date of issue of notification. 7. It is aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal by the Owner. 8. This appeal had been admitted and the matter though was directed to be listed for final disposal, has come in the orders list. We have taken up the matter for disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. We have heard Sri A.R. Hegde, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Adhyapak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. 10. Mr. Hegde has raised a three-fold contention. It is firstly submitted that the judgment and award of the reference Court had come to be merged with the judgment and award passed by this Court in MFA No. 4480 of 1996, being an appeal under Section 54 of the Act and therefore, the judgment and award of the reference Court was not independently available for effecting any correction either under review jurisdiction or under any other jurisdiction. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge could not have issued any direction to the learned Judge of the reference Court, in any way, to modify the judgment and award. 11. It is secondly contended that the judgment and award in MFA No.4480 of1996 had attained finality on 14.8.2001 and the review petition filed before the inappropriate forum, only during the year 2006 is hopelessly barred by the period of limitation and that apart, with the judgment and award determining compensation payable to the landowner having become final assuming there was some change of law, as in terms of R.L. Jain's case, it could not have made any difference for exercising review jurisdiction and for correction of the said judgment and award as, every change of law or a new law brought about by way of legislation cannot be a ground for re-opening concluded matters and for effecting corrections, applying the law as has developed subsequently. 12. Placing reliance on Explanation to Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under: Explanation. - The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a Superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Sri Hegde would submit that, in this view of the statutory provision, a review petition could not have been filed even before this Court in the Miscellaneous First Appeal, leave alone, before the reference Court for rectifying the judgment and award of the Trial Court and therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in law in directing the learned Judge of the reference Court to apply the law as in R.L. Jain's case and correct the judgment. 13. It is also submitted that, even if a review was tenable before the reference Court and the order passed by the reference Court was erroneous, that could have been made subject-matter of a revision petition under Section 115 of CPC and not subject-matter of a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 14. It. is therefore urged that, viewed from any angle, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and is required to be set aside and the writ petition dismissed. 15. Mr. 14. It. is therefore urged that, viewed from any angle, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and is required to be set aside and the writ petition dismissed. 15. Mr. Hegde would also submit that the owner of the land has been dragged to unending litigation and though, he lost possession and the benefit arising from the land way back in the year 1974, he is yet to receive the just compensation and even today, it is not paid. Learned Counsel would further submit that litigations like filing the writ petition has further delayed the amount being paid to the owner and therefore, the ordeal which the landowner has undergone should be suitably compensated. 16. On the other hand, Sri Adhyapak, learned Additional Government Advocate has drawn our attention to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 16322 of 2005, which was an earlier effort on their part to get the judgment and award of the Civil Court and the Appellate Court rectified to deprive the owner of the interest for the period prior to the date of issue of 4(1) notification and would strongly depend upon the observations made therein that, it is open to the petitioner to file a review, if so advised and therefore, would submit that the respondent - Land Acquisition Officer has rightly approached the reference Court for seeking review and therefore the review petition, even otherwise, was required to be entertained by the learned Judge of the reference Court. 17. It is also submitted that the law as declared by the Supreme Court in R.L. Jain's case is the law of the land has to be applied by all Courts and if, by passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge has only directed such course of action to be resorted to, no interference is warranted in the appeal. 18. We have perused the order and bestowed our attention to the submissions made at the bar. 19. We are of the very clear opinion that, for carrying out any correction in a judgment and award which has already come into existence, the procedure envisaged under law cannot be given a go-bye and if period of limitation is stipulated for taking corrective measures or remedial action, such period of limitation cannot be got over or avoided by having recourse to methods otherwise not provided in law. 20. 20. We are also of the view that the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not one which can be availed of for carrying out correction or rectification of the orders passed by this very Court, but the power of judicial review is in respect of administrative action and legislative action and to keep in bound. Courts and Tribunals which are subordinate to the High Court and within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The consequence of the direction given by the learned Single Judge is in fact to direct the reference Court to carry out a correction to the judgment and award passed by this Court in MFA No. 4480 of 1996. 21. With the judgment and award of the reference Court rendered in LAC No. 8 of 1989 having got merged with the Judgment and award passed by this Court in MFA No. 4480 of 1996, the learned Judge of the reference Court loses jurisdiction to alter the judgment and award which the learned Judge had passed in the reference case and even this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, cannot confer jurisdiction on the reference Court to rectify or modify a judgment and award which has got merged with the judgment and award passed by this Court. Even on the principle of judicial discipline and the hierarchy of judicial forums made available either under the statutory provisions or under the scheme of Constitution, there is no question of a reference Court which is a Court lower in tier being permitted in any way alter or meddle with a judgment 1 order passed by this Court. 22. It is also to be noticed that, if at all, any correction was required to be carried out, it could have been done only through a review sought for before this Court in the very MFA No.4480/199.6 and by no other means. Writ jurisdiction cannot be availed of to get a judgment and award passed by this very Court in exercise of the appellate power under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, corrected assuming that there was some mistake in the said judgment and award. 23. Writ jurisdiction cannot be availed of to get a judgment and award passed by this very Court in exercise of the appellate power under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, corrected assuming that there was some mistake in the said judgment and award. 23. But these principles apart, even on the principle that a litigation between the parties is required to attain finality after it has gone through the permitted tiers of Judicial hierarchy, is a very salient principle and that should always be respected and it is in recognition of this principle, explanation is added to Rule 1 of Order XLVII. 24. It is by now a very well accepted legal principle that judgments, orders and awards which have attained finality by going through the hierarchy of different judicial tiers, cannot be ropened or altered only because after such attainment of finality, there is a change in law. If a subsequent change in law can reopen concluded matters, there is no finality to litigation and it is against public interest. 25. Dispute resolution system is only to bring about a satisfactory solution to the problems of litigants and not to keep the problem in current perpetually. Otherwise, it is only ushering in discontent and unrest in the society and virtually is at cross purposes with the object of law itself which is to have an orderly manner of governance in the society and to have peace and order in the society and to provide protection to the weak and oppressed. 26. Viewed from any angle, we are of the clear opinion that the learned Single Judge could not have exercised writ jurisdiction for the purpose of issue of directions as has been issued in the impugned order. In fact, the writ petition itself should not have been entertained. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. Rule discharged. 27. We award compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- having regard to the length of litigation and the ordeal the owner of the land has undergone. 28. In fact, the writ petition itself should not have been entertained. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. Rule discharged. 27. We award compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- having regard to the length of litigation and the ordeal the owner of the land has undergone. 28. We only expect that the balance of the compensation amount payable to the owner as per the judgment and award of this Court rendered in MFA No. 4480 of 1996 and the cross appeal preferred in this appeal, will be deposited or paid without any further delay or procrastination and at any rate, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed.