R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners made an application u/s. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for redetermination of compensation on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court to other claimants interested in other lands covered by the same notification u/s. 4 of the Act. The judgment and award of the District Court is of 3. 4 and the application u/s 28-A of the Act was made on 23. 6. 87. ( 2 ) THAT application was rejected by the order dt. 30. 12 Annexure-F on two grounds; viz. (1) that the petitioner had already made an application for reference u/s. 18 of the Act and it was beyond 42 days and (2) that the notification u/s. 4 was published before 24. 9. 84 the date of commencement of the amendment Act inserting section 28-A of the Act and therefore section 28-A would not be applicable to the present case. ( 3 ) THE fact that the reference u/s. 18 of the Act was beyond time by 42 days would only mean that there was no application for reference in accordance with law and there was no reference u/s. 18 in the case of the present petitioner. However that will have no bearing on the question of redetermination of compensation u/s. 28-A of the Act. If there was a valid reference application and a reference in the case of a claimant the question of redetermination u/s. 28 of the Act would not arise. But once such an application is not there and reference is not there he is a person covered by section 28-A of the Act and he can certainly seek redetermination of compensation on the basis of the award made in respect of other lands covered by the same notification. ( 4 ) THE second point that notification u/s 4 of the Act was prior to the commencement of section 28-A of the Act and therefore application u/s. 28-A of the Act was not maintainable also has normal. This question is already concluded by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Harkhabhai vs. Second Extra Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 33 (1) GLR 105. This question is already concluded by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Harkhabhai vs. Second Extra Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 33 (1) GLR 105. Wherein it is held that on the basis of any award made by the Court u/s. 18 of the Act after coming into force of section 28-A of the Act any person interested in any other land covered by the same notification u/s. 4 of the Act can make an application u/s. 28-A of the Act for redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the amount awarded by the Court. The provisions of section 28-A of the Act would cover all the awards made by the court on and after 24. 9 It was further observed that there was no justification whatsoever for the view that section 28 of the Act would not apply to cases where notification u/s. 4 (1) of the Act is issued prior to the date and on which said provision was brought into force. This judgment has been subsequently followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Becharbhai Karasanbhai and Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 33 GLR Page ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid clear legal position this petition is required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dt 30. 12. 88 refusing redetermination of compensation and the respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the application of the petitioners and re-determine the compensation in accordance with law. The impugned order refusing to redetermine compensation was based on earlier Government circulars. They have been superseded by Government circular dt. 12. 8. 92 which seems to have been issued as a result of the aforesaid judgments of this Court; wherein also it is now directed that if the award of the District Court on the reference is pronounced after 24. 9. 84 in the case of notification u/s. 4 of the Act issued prior to 24. 9 the provisions of section 28-A of the Act would be applicable. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Application Allowed. .