ORDER : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. The review petitions in all these appeals are filed on common grounds. Hence, they are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The lands, structures and trees belonging to the review applicants were acquired for the purpose of construction of Somasila Project by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1992. All the acquired properties including the trees were situated in Malinenipatnam Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District. They were divided into different reaches and separate notifications were issued more or less at the same time. Since we are concerned with the fixation of price for pomegranate trees, it is not necessary for us to refer to the fixation of compensation in respect of other properties. By separate awards, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation @ Rs. 100/- per each pomegranate tree. Dissatisfied with the said fixation, the review applicants have sought reference of the dispute to competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference Court has enhanced the market value by three times over the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the State preferred appeals, wherein the review applicants have filed cross-objections. A Division Bench of this Court partly allowed the cross-objections by fixing the market value of each tree at Rs. 700/- and dismissed the appeals. While doing so, the Division Bench has relied upon the judgment dated 06-08-2008 of this Court in A.S. Nos. 3798 of 2000 and 2081 of 2001. Almost 5 or 6 years later, the respondents in A.S. No. 3798 of 2000 filed review petition with a petition for condonation of delay in filing review petition. In support of their claim of Rs. 2,000/- per tree, they have relied upon the judgment in A.S. No. 1749 of 2004, wherein this Court has fixed the value of each pomegranate tree at Rs. 2,000/-. A Division Bench of this Court has not only condoned the huge delay in filing the review petition but also allowed the review and eventually enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,000/- per tree while finally disposing of the appeal and cross-objections by its judgment dated 24-09-2013. This judgment was not challenged by the State and it was accordingly allowed to attain finality. 2,000/- per tree while finally disposing of the appeal and cross-objections by its judgment dated 24-09-2013. This judgment was not challenged by the State and it was accordingly allowed to attain finality. A similarly situated person filed a review with huge delay in seeking review of the judgment in L.A.A.S. No. 1058 of 2007. The review was allowed and the said appeal was finally disposed of by judgment dated 20-11-2013 fixing the value of each pomegranate tree at Rs. 2,000/-. Similar course was adopted by the claimants in L.A.A.S. Nos. 1050 and 1059 of 2007, wherein also this Court has reviewed its earlier judgments fixing the value at Rs. 700/- and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,000/- per each pomegranate tree. In a recent judgment, a Division Bench of this Court has disposed of A.S. No. 1583 of 2003 along with Review A.S.M.P. No. 1813 of 2016 in A.S. No. 3833 of 2003 vide judgment dated 07-08-2016. A detailed discussion was undertaken in the said judgment and after repelling all the objections raised on behalf of the State, the Division Bench has reviewed the earlier judgments and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,000/- per each pomegranate tree. The present review applications are identical to all the aforementioned cases, wherein initially this Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 700/- per each pomegranate tree and finally fixed the same at Rs. 2,000/- after reviewing its earlier judgments. 3. Learned Special Government Pleader while admitting that there is not much variance on facts between the cases on hand and the aforementioned cases, wherein compensation has been fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per pomegranate tree, however, advanced the following submissions: "(1) In A.S. No. 1749 of 2004, wherein this Court has for the first time fixed the market value of each pomegranate tree at Rs. 2,000/- per pomegranate tree, however, advanced the following submissions: "(1) In A.S. No. 1749 of 2004, wherein this Court has for the first time fixed the market value of each pomegranate tree at Rs. 2,000/-, certain details regarding age of the pomegranate trees and their yield have been referred to but in none of the present cases, any such details have been furnished by the claimants-review applicants; (2) Under explanation to Order XLVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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; (3) Once the claimants have restricted their claim to Rs. 1,000/-, they are not entitled for enhancement of compensation beyond such restricted claim. In support of this plea, learned Special Government Pleader has placed reliance on the judgment in Assistant Commissioner - cum - Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary, v. S.T. Pompanna Setty: (2005) 9 SCC 662 ; and (4) Many years back, the State deposited the compensation @ Rs. 700/- per tree and that if reasonable interest is calculated and added to the said figure, the compensation would more or less come to Rs. 2,000/- per pomegranate tree and that, therefore, there is no justification in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 2,000/- per tree at this stage." 4. We have carefully considered the aforementioned submissions of learned Special Government Pleader. As regards the first submission of learned Special Government Pleader, a perusal of the entire judgment in A.S. No. 1749 of 2004 would reveal that no detailed discussion has been undertaken on the evidence regarding the specific age of the trees and the yield with specificity. All that the judgment would reveal is that the Division Bench has made a generic reference to the value of the yield from all varieties of trees such as Mango, Drumstick, Guava, Jackfruit, Sapota (Sapodilla) and Pomegranate. Following such generic discussion, the Division Bench has fixed Rs. 2,000/- per each pomegranate tree as compensation. We therefore do not find any merit in the first submission of learned Special Government Pleader that the present case on hand could be distinguished from the cases referred to above, under which this Court has fixed the compensation at Rs. Following such generic discussion, the Division Bench has fixed Rs. 2,000/- per each pomegranate tree as compensation. We therefore do not find any merit in the first submission of learned Special Government Pleader that the present case on hand could be distinguished from the cases referred to above, under which this Court has fixed the compensation at Rs. 2,000/-, only on the ground of lack of specific details as to the age and yield of pomegranate trees. Existence of such lacuna is not peculiar only to the case on hand but it exists in all other previous cases also. As could be seen from the judgments in A.S. No. 3798 of 2000 and other appeals referred to above, this Court, as a norm, has taken Rs. 2,000/- as the value of each pomegranate tree without specific reference to its age and yield. Indeed, in the most recent judgment i.e. in A.S. Nos. 1583 of 2003 and batch referred to above, this Court has traced reference to all the previous judgments following the uniform pattern of fixing the market value at Rs. 2,000/- per tree without specific reference to evidence. It is not in dispute that the State has not carried the matters in appeal against any of the judgments referred to above, whereunder the market value was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per pomegranate tree. In our opinion, when certain persons were allowed the benefit of higher compensation, there is no justification for denying the same benefit to other similarly situated persons, more so when the State has allowed the judgments to attain finality and paid compensation. 5. As regards the second submission of leaned Special Government Pleader, the law is well settled that if a case was disposed of based on a particular legal position existing at the time of disposal, a review cannot be allowed merely because subsequently there was a change in legal position. This proposition has no application to the facts of the present cases for the reason that these review petitions are not based on any change in legal position after disposal of the appeals. On the contrary, the review petitions are based on the subsequent events of similar review petitions being allowed by this Court by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 700/- fixed earlier to Rs. 2,000/-. On the contrary, the review petitions are based on the subsequent events of similar review petitions being allowed by this Court by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 700/- fixed earlier to Rs. 2,000/-. These review petitions include the one filed in A.S. No. 1749 of 2004 which was made basis for fixing market value of Rs. 700/- per pomegranate tree in the instant case. In other words, the appellants have claimed parity between them and other similarly situated persons who had the benefit of enhanced compensation. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this submission of learned Special Government Pleader. 6. With regard to the judgment in S.T. Pompanna Setty : (2005) 9 SCC 662 (supra), a similar plea as raised before us was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S. No. 1583 of 2003 by holding that this plea is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Haryana : (2016) 4 SCC 544 , wherein it was pointed out that prior to amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of compensation that could be awarded was limited to the amount claimed but after the amendment, the cap is only on the minimum and not on the maximum and that the Supreme Court emphasized that it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors irrespective of the claim made by the owner. 7. Coming to the last submission, this deserves to be referred only to be rejected. The issue in these review petitions pertains to what is the just compensation. If a compensation is determined today, it dates back to the date on which the compensation was awarded. Therefore, the plea based on calculation of interest is not sustainable. When all other similarly situated persons were paid compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per tree, we find no reason whatsoever to deny such compensation to the appellants in the present batch of appeals. 8. For all the aforementioned reasons, the review petitions are allowed, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed and the cross-objections are decreed fixing compensation at Rs. 2,000/- per each pomegranate tree in addition to all the statutory benefits thereon on payment of differential Court fee on compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per each pomegranate tree, if not already paid.