JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta. J.—Petitioners have sought quashing of the orders dated March 1, 1988, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Beas Dam Project, Talwara, Annexures P-2 to P-13, rejecting the applications of the petitioners under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be called as the Act) seeking redetermination of the compensation amount on the ground that the petitioners cannot be said to be persons aggrieved and thus entitled to have the amount of compensation re-determined. 2. Property of the petitioners located in 12 revenue estates was acquired by the respondent for public purpose, namely, for the construction of reservoir of Pong Dam on the basis of notification dated April 1, 1963, issued under section 4 (f) of the Act. After the Land Acquisition Collector had made his award, petitioners received the amount of compensation but no reference was sought by them under section 18 of the Act. After the Act had been amended by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 (briefly the amendment Act), on the basis of which section 28-A was introduced enabling the persons interested to seek redetermination of the amount of compensation, the petitioners applied for redetermination of the amount of compensation. The applications were resisted by the respondent on various grounds One of the grounds on which resistance was put and which prevailed with the Collector in rejecting the same was that the petitioners had received the amount of compensation without protest and as such they were not persons aggrieved, which was one of the conditions precedent in seeking redetermination of the amount of compensation 3. The impugned orders have been challenged on the ground that the Collector Land Acquisition has by misinterpreting the provisions of section 28-A of the Act came to an incorrect conclusion thereby depriving the petitioners of the benefit of the provision which was introduced in the amendment Act with a view to provide equality in the payment of compensation, it was further urged that section 28-A of the Act deserves to be construed in the manner that the desired object is achieved, for which learned Counsel sought assistance from para 2 (ix) of the Objects and Reasons of the amendment Act, which reads as under :— “……..Considering that the right of reference to the civil court under section 18 of the Act is not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and is usually exercised only by the comparatively affllent landowners and that this causes considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for the same for similar quality of land to different interested parties, it is proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek redetermination of compensation once any one of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference Court under section 18 of the Act." 4. Section 8-A (I) introduced by the amendment Act, reads as under; — "(1) Where in an award under this part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section II, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector, may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this subsection, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded." 5. The Supreme Court in The Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd Bhatinda v Union of India and others, JT 1990 (4) SC I has, while dealing with the scope of the newly added section 28-A of the Act, held: — “……Under this provision where compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11 is enhanced by the Court in reference under section 18, the persons interested in the acquired land who were not parties to the reference may, by a written application to the Collector made within three months from the date of the award of the Court, request the Collector to redetermine the amount of compensation payable to them on the basis of the amount awarded by the Court On receipt of such an application the Collector is expected to conduct an inquiry and make an award redetermining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. Any person who does not accept the award so made may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred for the determination of the Court whereupon the provisions of sections 18 and 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18. It is obvious on a plain reading of sub-section (1) of section 28-A that it applies only to those claimants who had failed to seek a reference under section 18 of the Act. The re-determination has to be done by the Collector on the basis of the compensation awarded by the Court in the reference under section 18 the Act and an application in that behalf has to be made to the Collector within 30 days from the date of the award. Thus only those claimants who had failed to apply for a reference under section 18 of the Act are conferred this right to apply to the Collector for re- determination……” 6. It has not been disputed on behalf of the respondent that the other requirements for the applicability of section 28-A in case of the petitioners are fulfilled. The only objection is that the petitioners cannot fie said to be persons aggrieved by the award of the Collector. 7. It has not been disputed on behalf of the respondent that the other requirements for the applicability of section 28-A in case of the petitioners are fulfilled. The only objection is that the petitioners cannot fie said to be persons aggrieved by the award of the Collector. 7. The words, person interested, who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector, occurring in section 28-A of the Act cannot be equated with the words persons interested referred to in section 18 of the Act who receive the amount of compensation without protest. Second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Act provides that no person who receives the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to seek reference to the Court by making an application under section 18 of the Act Thus one of the requirement for making an application seeking reference to the Court is that the person should not have received the amount of compensation otherwise under protest. Had the intention of the legislature been to deprive such of the persons who had received the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector otherwise lender protest for seeking remedy of having the com pensation re-determined under section 28-A of the Act, in that event a similar provision v. at to have found mention in the Act, in the Absence of a similar provision or in the absence of a specific bar it is not possible for us to take a view that a person who had earlier received the amount of compensation awarded by Collector otherwise than under protest is now debarred to seek the remedy under section 28-A of the Act. The only interpretation which can be given to the words, person interested who is also aggrieved by the award, is that the person whose lands are also covered by the same notification, issued under section 4 (I) of the Act, and who had not sought reference earlier, but is now feeling aggrieved by the award of the Collector because of the enhancement of the amount of compensation in an award of the Court with respect to the land of other person covered by the same notification issued under section 4 of the Act. On a plain reading of section 28-A, no other view is possible. On a plain reading of section 28-A, no other view is possible. In view of this, the orders Annexures P-2 to P-13 passed by the Collector Land Acquisition cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures P-2 to P-13 are quashed. The respondent is directed to proceed to re-determine the amount of compensation on the basis of the compensation awarded by the Court of Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Land Reference No. 1325 of 1976 dated September 27, 1987. 9. Parties are left to bear their respective costs. Writ petition allowed.