JUDGMENT :- 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. .... 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 time of award proceedings itself, the Review Petitioners requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the Award for determination of market value to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Drawing our attention to the typed set of papers filed by the learned Special Government Pleader, learned Senior Counsel submitted that at the time of award proceedings itself, the Review Petitioners requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the Award for determination of market value to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that Review Petitioners have also sent notice through their counsel requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to make Reference under Section 18 of the Act. 6. It was submitted that the finding given by the Division Bench in A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 that Reference Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question is not correct and virtually, the request of the Review Petitioners was to make Reference under Section 18 only and the Reference Court has rightly treated the Land Acquisition Original Petitions as Reference under Section 18 of the Act and determined the market value based on the documents produced and the judgment of the Division Bench in A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 dated 28.7.2003 suffers from error in not taking note of entire Award proceedings. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that Reference Court erred and exceeded its jurisdiction by converting Section 30 Reference in to under Section 18 of the Act and determined the market value of the acquired lands. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that with regard to Award No.1 of 1980 dated 29.2.1980, the Land Acquisition Officer did not make any reference under Section 18. It was submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 has rightly set aside the judgment of the Reference Court holding that the course adopted by the Reference Court was without jurisdiction and the Reference Court was not competent to go into the question. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for Review Petitioners and also the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader and perused the materials on record. 9. By perusal of the records, it is seen that Award No.1 of 1980 was passed on 29.2.1980. During the Award enquiry, in the enquiry proceedings, the land owners have given statements/representations stating that the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and requested to pay higher rate per square feet. 9. By perusal of the records, it is seen that Award No.1 of 1980 was passed on 29.2.1980. During the Award enquiry, in the enquiry proceedings, the land owners have given statements/representations stating that the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and requested to pay higher rate per square feet. Review Petitioners 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, who are legal representatives of Claimant Nos.20, 23 and 39 have given their objection in writing during the Award enquiry on 29.01.1980 stating that the award amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and that they accepted to receive the award amount under protest. It is also seen from the typed set of papers filed by the Government that the Claimants have sent notice through their counsel on 12.4.1980 and 18.4.1980 respectively requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to refer Award No.1 of 1980 for determining the market value under Section 18 of the Act to Reference Court. 10. It is pertinent to note that the Claimants/Land owners have received the compensation under protest and sought for enhancement of higher rate of compensation. The Claimants/Land owners sought for higher rate of compensation is also evident from the Award proceedings. Referring to the statements/representations of the Claimants/Land owners, the Land Acquisition Officer has recorded that "the persons who appeared for enquiry demanded for enhanced rate for valuing their fields". By perusal of the Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has recorded the following:-" ..... The persons appeared for enquiry demanded for enhanced rate for valuing their fields. They have not claimed any specific rate of compensation. Hence their claim could not be considered. Hence the entire compensation amount due to this field will be deposited in the Sub-Court, Erode u/s. 18 of the L.A. Act. ......" Similarly, in respect of Review Petitioners/Claimants also the Land Acquisition Officer has recorded the same objections. 11. Of course in the case of few Claimants, for instance, in S.F.No.408 and 394/1 and few other Survey Numbers, there were some dispute amongst the Claimants/Land owners as to the shares to which they are entitled. In some other instances like S.F.No.393/1B and other Survey Numbers, the Claimants/Land owners did not appear for enquiry and they were also not represented by any persons. In some other instances like S.F.No.393/1B and other Survey Numbers, the Claimants/Land owners did not appear for enquiry and they were also not represented by any persons. In those of the cases where the land owners did not appear for enquiry also, the Land Acquisition Officer observed that "compensation amount will be deposited in Sub-Court, Erode under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act". Because of certain instances where compensation could not be apportioned or where the land owners did not appear for enquiry, Reference was made under Section 30 of the Act. In this process, the Land Acquisition Officer seems to have ignored the claim of the Claimants/Land owners in number of other cases claiming higher compensation and receiving compensation under protest. In those cases, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have made Reference under Section 18 only. Rightly Claimants have filed Petitions in I.A.No.181,183 and 185 of 1987 for amending the Reference under Section 30 as that of Section 18. The Interlocutory Applications in I.A.No.181,183 and 185 of 1987 were allowed by the Reference Court, by the order dated 3.12.1987. 12. As pointed out earlier, the Review Petitioners/Claimants have consistently insisted the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the Award under Section 18 of the Act for claiming enhanced rate of compensation. During the pendency of the L.A.O.P., Claimants have also filed applications I.A.No.181,183 and 185 of 1987 for converting the Reference under Section 18 of the Act and by the order dated 3.12.1987, Reference was amended into Section 18. It is pertinent to note that the said orders in I.A.No.181,183 and 185 of 1987 were not challenged and those orders became final. 13. It is also to be pointed out that in the Reference Court, Claimants/Land owners have filed statements in Land Acquisition Original Petitions seeking higher rate of compensation. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode in these Review Applications, it is stated that the Review Petitioners have given their objection in writing during the award enquiry stating that the award amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is low and they accepted to receive the award amount under protest. Thus, it is clear from the counter averments that the Revenue Divisional Officer himself accepts that Review Petitioners/Land owners request is to refer the Reference under Section 18 of the Act. 14. Thus, it is clear from the counter averments that the Revenue Divisional Officer himself accepts that Review Petitioners/Land owners request is to refer the Reference under Section 18 of the Act. 14. In the Reference Court, during trial the Claimants/Land owners have consciously adduced evidence for claiming higher compensation. Land Acquisition Officer contested the case of the Claimants by adducing oral and documentary evidence that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is correct. To show that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was reasonable, the Land Acquisition Officer has produced sale deeds – Exs.R1 to R4 and also sales statistics – Ex.R5. During trial, parties were conscious that the Land Acquisition Original Petitions were only for enhancement of compensation and not for apportionment of the compensation awarded. 15. The Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used in Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. Court may allow a review on three specified grounds, viz., (1) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made; (2) mistake or error apparent on the face of the records; or (3) for any other sufficient reason. An error can be said to be one apparent on the face of the record only when such error is patent and can be located without any elaborate argument without any scope for any controversy with regard to such error, which as if, at a glance stares at the face. 16. When the appeals – A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 were heard, we have referred to only the Award No.1 of 1980 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Statement of some of the Claimants/Land owners giving their objections in writing were not produced before us at that time. Therefore, earlier, we proceeded under the footing that amendment of the Reference from under Section 30 as that of Reference under Section 18 was without basis and the Court held that such an amendment is without jurisdiction. Statement of some of the Claimants/Land owners giving their objections in writing were not produced before us at that time. Therefore, earlier, we proceeded under the footing that amendment of the Reference from under Section 30 as that of Reference under Section 18 was without basis and the Court held that such an amendment is without jurisdiction. As pointed our earlier, the Review Petitioners/Claimants have consistently insisted the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the Award under Section 18 of the Act for claiming enhanced rate of compensation and therefore, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Division Bench in A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 that the decree of awarding higher compensation is beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is to be reviewed. 17. There is yet another reason for holding that the Claimants/Land owners are entitled to higher compensation of Rs.7/- per square feet as awarded by the Reference Court. Being aggrieved by non-awarding of interest on solatium (30%), Claimants 34, 35 and 36 have filed appeal in A.S.No.434 of 1991 and the said appeal was allowed on 7.11.2002 holding that the Claimants 34, 35 and 36 are entitled to interest on solatium. It is pertinent to note that Claimants 34 to 36 were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per square feet along with statutory benefits. There was no objection from the Government. Since the Review Petitioners/Claimants herein are similarly placed, absolutely there is no reason to hold that Review Petitioners are on different footing. There is no reason why Review Petitioners/Claimants should be denied benefit of payment of market value so determined by the Reference Court when some of the similarly placed Claimants/Land owners got the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.7/-per square feet. while so, the compensation awarded to Claimants 34, 35 and 36 cannot be denied to other Claimants. 18. 11th review petitioner – V.Bhuvaneswari purchased the property on 15.05.1971 but the compensation was awarded in the name of erstwhile owner Nallusamy. Learned counsel for the 11th review petitioner submitted that the 11th review petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the compensation. while so, the compensation awarded to Claimants 34, 35 and 36 cannot be denied to other Claimants. 18. 11th review petitioner – V.Bhuvaneswari purchased the property on 15.05.1971 but the compensation was awarded in the name of erstwhile owner Nallusamy. Learned counsel for the 11th review petitioner submitted that the 11th review petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the compensation. Having regard to the submission, 11th review petitioner is at liberty to file the application before the Reference Court and on such application, the Reference Court shall order notice to all the parties concerned and afford opportunity to all the parties and pass orders in accordance with law. 19. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhag Singh v. UT of Chandigarh [ (1985) 3 SCC 737 ], it must be remembered that this was not a dispute between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the Claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. To deny the benefit to the Review Petitioners/Claimants would tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the Review Petitioners/Claimants on payment of less than the true market value. W hen the Land Acquisition Officer has committed a mistake making the Reference under Section 30 which was later rectified by the Reference Court by allowing amendment, it would not fair and just to deprive the Review Petitioners' market value as the compensation. If the judgment is not reviewed and recalled, the Review Petitioners/Claimants and other land owners, who lost their land by acquisition in the year 1980 and yet to receive the compensation awarded by the Reference Court would be subjected to great hardship. Therefore, we are of the view that the common judgment in A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 dated 28.7.2013 suffers from error which needs to be reviewed and that the Review Applications are liable to be allowed. 19. In the result, all the Review Applications are allowed. The common judgment dated 28.7.2003 in A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 is reviewed and ordered to be recalled. 19. In the result, all the Review Applications are allowed. The common judgment dated 28.7.2003 in A.S.Nos.593 to 595 of 1991 is reviewed and ordered to be recalled. The judgment passed by the Reference Court in L.A.O.P.Nos.13, 14 and 16 of 1984 is confirmed. The Review petitioners/claimants are also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% as awarded by the Reference Court. Review petitioners/claimants are also entitled to interest on the said solatium. For the interest on solatium, which is now ordered by us in the Review Applications, the court fee if any payable by the review petitioners/claimants are payable by the review petitioners/claimants. Six weeks time is granted for paying the court fee payable on the interest on the solatium till the filing of the appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.