RAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is directed against the rejection of the application made by the petitioners under S. 28a (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancing the Award in view of the enhancement of the Award in other cases covered by the same Notification for acquisition. It appears that the Collector rejected the said application "". under S. 28a (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the Award, simply on the ground that S. 28a has been brought into the Act by way of amendment after the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition act was issued in the instant case. It appears to us that the date of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has no relevance in considering the case for enhancement under S. 28a of the Land Acquisition act. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme court, made in the case of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in 1986 (4) SCC 151 . The Supreme Court has held, in the said decision that for availing the remedy of re-determination of the amount of compensation under S. 28a of the Land Acquisition Act, the conditions laid down therein are to be fulfilled and the forum is the Collector and the application has to be made before him within 30 days from the date of the Award, and the right is restricted to persons, who had not applied for reference under s. 18 of the Act. There is no dispute in the instant case that the applicant has not made an application for reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition act and he has also made an application under S. 28a of the Land Acquisition act before the Collector, who is the appropriate forum and the application has also been made within the time referred to in S. 28a and the enhancement of the Award was made in respect of other cases, which are covered by the same declaration under S. 6 and the Notification under S. 4 of the land Acquisition Act. In the aforesaid circumstances all the conditions are fulfilled. Hence, the rejection on the ground indicated by the Collector appears to be wholly misconceived. In the aforesaid circumstances all the conditions are fulfilled. Hence, the rejection on the ground indicated by the Collector appears to be wholly misconceived. We also refer to an unreported decision of this court in Special Civil Application No. 4216 of 1989, which was disposed of by a Division Bench on 14th of November, 1990. Similar facts were taken into consideration by the Division Bench and it has been held that s. 28a of the Land Acquisition Act was applicable and the rejection of the application for enhancement of compensation under-S. 28a on the ground that the Notification under S. 4 was issued before the amendment in Sec. 28a of the Act was misconceived. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Division Bench and in "the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this application and direct the Collector to decide the Application under s. 28a of the Land Acquisition Act within three months from today and to give effect to the Award in accordance with law. In the facts of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute to the extent indicated above. .