Judgment :- Koshy, J. In all the three Original Petitions the complaint of the petitioners is that their applications for making redetermination of compensation were rejected because their applications were not accompanied the certified copy of the judgment. S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act deals with the procedure regarding redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award. The above Section reads as follows: "28A. re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court: (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 S.11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under S.4, sub-s.(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 S.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 sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-s.1, conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-s.2 may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Ss.18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to the reference under S.18." It is contended by the petitioners that the above Section did not provide for production of the certified copy of the order along with the application. Of course if the affected parties are not having a copy of the award with them they can apply for certified copy. Of course if the affected parties are not having a copy of the award with them they can apply for certified copy. The delay in obtaining the certified copy can be excluded for computing the period of three months. But that does not mean that it is obligatory on the part of the parties to file certified copy alongwith the application. In these cases, attested copy of the award was produced along with the application itself, and later certified copy was also produced. 2. I am of the opinion that if application is filed under S.28A within three months from the date of the award it cannot be dismissed as not maintainable if other conditions are satisfied merely because certified copy was not produced along with the application under S.28-A. The Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Ann v. Pradeep Kumar and Ors. ((1995) 2 SCC 736) mentioned six conditions to be followed while considering an application under S.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The conditions are as follows: "(1) An award has been made by the Court under Part III after the coming into force of S.28A; (ii) B y the said award, the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under S.11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference; (iii) The person moving the application under S.28-A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under S.4(1) to which the said award relates; (iv) The person moving the application did not make an application to the Collector under S.18; (v) The application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the redetermination of amount of compensation is sought; and (vi) Only one application can be moved under S.28A for redetermination of compensation by an applicant." The production of certified copy alongwith the application as provided under 0.41 R.1 of the CPC is not made compulsory either in the Act or in the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, merely because certified copy of the order was not produced alongwith the application such application cannot be rejected if the application is filed within three months from the date of the award. However, the applicants who are producing certified copy are entitled to get the time for getting certified copy excluded. Therefore, merely because certified copy of the order was not produced alongwith the application such application cannot be rejected if the application is filed within three months from the date of the award. However, the applicants who are producing certified copy are entitled to get the time for getting certified copy excluded. There may be cases where parties may not be aware of the exact nature of the award of the Court and they have to apply and get a certified copy. In order to provide for such situation, proviso is included. The proviso of the Act make no direction that application under S.28A should always be accompanied with the certified copy. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in Mathai Thomas v. State of Kerala (1989 (2) KLT 732) held that if a person applies within three months from the date of award of the Court under S.28-A, this Section will come into notion. Here it is not disputed that all the applications were filed within three months from the date of the award. Therefore, the applications cannot be rejected under S.28-A merely because certified copy was not produced along with the application. In this case, it is further noted that there is a direction from this court that Ext. P-15 in O.P. No. 15941 of 1996 may be considered by the respondents. In all the cases such adirection is there. Therefore, in these Original Petitions in view of a specific direction of this court the respondents ought to have considered the petitioners' applications on merits as those judgments were not appealed against. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the Original Petitions. The Original Petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider and pass orders on the applications filed by the petitioners as provided under S.28A as expeditiously as possible. Ext. P-16 and similar orders are therefore, quashed. Fresh orders may be passed by the respondents as provided under S.28-A.