These are all fairly clear.
There are missing references to recent literature, which are closely
related to this submitted work.
Exactly what it says on the tin. The reviewer believes you are missing references, and importantly, recent references in areas close to what your paper is on. You should find them, and include them. More importantly...
A proper comparison of results and the methodologies among these
efforts, as well as clear motivation for the incremental progress is
Your reviewer is asking you to put your paper in research in context with those papers. What does this add? Why did it need to be done. What is the motivation of the work?
In addition, the submitted paper has several typographical and
This, again, means exactly what it says. The reviewer has found what they believe are typographical errors, and errors where the paper isn't well organized - for example, possibly where a section relies on something not yet introduced.
The decision is "reject".
Should I resubmit to the same journal after making corrections or to a
If they wanted you to revise and resubmit, that would have been the decision. A flat "Reject" decision means you will need a new journal, though I would suggest taking the reviewer's comments to heart. It's possible they're correct, and it's possible you'll get the same reviewer again.
To expand a bit on your comments, because replies are a bad place for nuance:
I have one question? suppose i sent this paper to a lower standard journal and the same reviewer gets hold of the paper, will his/her review change subject to the journal
This is very unlikely. You might get away with it if the primary criticism was about the novelty or importance of the paper, or not fitting with the right audience. But, to be direct, the reviewer's comments are things that would be fatal flaws in most respectable journals - just going down a tier won't fix them. Instead, I'd strongly suggest you mull over the reviewers comments, go looking for the recent studies they mention, etc.