Judgment Nagendra Rai and P.K.Sarkar JJ. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the benefits of the Awards made under Sec. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act in Reference Case Nos. 91, 92, 93 and 94 of 1979. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present application are that a preliminary notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of the land for public purpose i.e. for Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization was issued. On 10.11.67 a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was made and on 6.4.74 the awards were prepared under Sec. 11 of the Act in different Land Acquisition cases. Some of the Awardees did not accept the Award made by the Collector and laid objections before the Collector who made a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act and the Land Acquisition Judge made an Award on 30.9.85 enhancing the amount of compensation. The petitioners because of their poverty did not make an application for reference under Sec. 18 of the Act. When they came to know about the enhancement of amount of compensation by reference court, they filed an application before the collector under Sec. 28A of the Act praying therein to award them the some amount of compensation as has been awarded to the other award dees by the reference Court. On 30th April, 987 the Collector passed an Award in favour of the petitioners enhancing the amount of compensation. However, the enhanced amount was not deposited by the respondent No. 4 the B.C.C.L for whose benefits the lands were acquired. At this stage, it would be mentioned that originally the land was acquired for the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organisation and later on the aforesaid organisation has merged with respondent No. 4. As the amount of enhanced compensation as determined by the Award under Sec. 28 A of the Act was not paid to the petitioners they have filed the present writ application. 3. From perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that the State Government has filed an appeal against the judgment and Award made under Sec. 18 of the Act before this Court being F.A. No. 32 to 35 of 1986 (8). 3. From perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that the State Government has filed an appeal against the judgment and Award made under Sec. 18 of the Act before this Court being F.A. No. 32 to 35 of 1986 (8). The respondent No. 4 has already filed an application for its addition on the ground that as it is an interested party it should be here in the appeal. The said appeal is still pending for disposal. 4. This matter was placed for hearing before the learned single judge of this Court and he has reference the matter to the Division Bench by framing the following questions for determination by order dated 21.1.96; (i) As to whether the persons, who did not file an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, can get the award of the Collect redetermined under Sec. 28-A, When admittedly, the award of the Land Acquisition Court is itself the subject matter of first Appeal before the High Court? (ii) As to whether the respondent-BCCL can be directed by the High Court to pay redeterained amount, as it is the State Government who hi requried the land; and (iii) Whether in view of the fact that against the judgment and decrees passed by the L.A. Judge in terms of Sec. 18 of the Act is pending in appeal under Sec. 54 of the Act, the petitioners can be paid the lesetermined amount in terms of Sec. 28-A of the Act? 5. Sec. 28A was incorporeted on the Land Acquisition Act by amendment Act 68 of 1984. The said sections as follows: 28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis c 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 amour awarded by the Collector under Sec. 11, the persons, interested in an other land covered by the same notification under Sec. 4, Sub-sec. (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 Sec. 18, by written application to the Collector within there months form the date of the award of the Court require that the amount o compensation payable to them may be re-determined 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-sec. (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable on opportunity of being heard and made an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under Sub-sec. (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 Section 18 to 28 shall, so far may be, apply to such reference as the apply to a reference under Sec. 18. 6. A bara reading of the aforesaid Section shows that this provision, has been incorporated to help the poor people who by reason of their poverty or for same other reasonable grounds have not taken the benefit of the provision of Section 18 which provided for reference. This Section has come for consideration before the Apex Court in several cases. In this consideration reference may be made to the latest judgment of the Apex Court reported in bu Rea and Ors. V/s. State of U.P. and Anr. -- , wherein has been held as follows:- In on acquisition proceedings, land situated in the same locality and in the same neigbouring locality when a possessed of the same comperable advantages, the owners of the former lands be entitle to the same rate of compensation as the owners of other lands as determined by the judgment of the High Court which had become final as otherwise, it would be inequitable and discriminatory. In other words, the owners of the lands possessing the same kind as same quality etc. are entitled to parity in payment of compensation for their lands. Sec. 28-1 (i) it intended to over some the hurdle created by Sec. 18(1) and 2nd proviso to Sec. 31(2) in the matter of obeaining equal compensation for similar acquired lands. Equal compensation for similar acquired lands could be got by all the interested persons, if their lands are acquired under the same notification. Sec. 28-1 (i) it intended to over some the hurdle created by Sec. 18(1) and 2nd proviso to Sec. 31(2) in the matter of obeaining equal compensation for similar acquired lands. Equal compensation for similar acquired lands could be got by all the interested persons, if their lands are acquired under the same notification. In other words, if an owner fails to avail of the right and remedy under Sec. 18(1), Sec. 28-1(1) grants an extra right and remedy for redetermination of the compensation payable to him for his land on the basis of an award of the court giving to an owner of another land covered by the same notification under Sec. 4(1) and under the same award, The payment of higher compensation to his neighbouring land owner makes an applicant an aggrieved person to claim redetermination of the compensation payable to him for his land. The person aggrieved, therefore, in this context, would mean a person who had suffered legal injury or one who has been unjustly deprived or denied of something, which he would be interested to obtain in the usual course or similar benefits or advantage or result in wrongful affection of his title to compensation. Thus the law is well settled that any person who has not made an application for reference under Secs. 18 of the Act due to poverty or other relevant ground can move the Collector for redetermination of the award if his land is similar and aggrieved by same notification. 7. Question No. 1: So far Sec. 28A is concerned, it speaks that when the court has enhanced the amount of compensation under Sec. 18 then the person aggrieved who has not made an application for reference but whose land is similar and acquired by the same notification can file an application for determination of the amount of compensation. In our view once the Court has enhanced the amount of compensation under action 18 the aggrieved person who has not made an application for reference under Sec. 18 becomes entitled to file an application for redetermination. ling of an appeal against the judgment and award made under Sec. 18 cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of Sec. 28A especially when the action itself provides that the application has to be made to the Collector within three months from the date of award made under Sec. 18 of the Act. ling of an appeal against the judgment and award made under Sec. 18 cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of Sec. 28A especially when the action itself provides that the application has to be made to the Collector within three months from the date of award made under Sec. 18 of the Act. the aggrieved person awaits till the disposal of the appeal by the appellate court the his application would be barred under Sub-sec. (l).Thus, in our considered view, the only reasonable interpretation would be that filing of an appeal by the concerned party against the enhancement of compensation under Sec. 18 does not bar the filing of an application under Sec. 28-A (1) for redetermination of amount of compensation. 8. Question No. 2: There is no dispute that the land was acquired for Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization which has now merged with the B.C.C.L. There is also no dispute that the B.C.C.L. has filed an application for being added as party in the appeal pending in this Court on the ground that it is an interested person and to be heard as it has to pay the enhanced amount of compensation. Thus, in our view, the B.C.C.L. is an interested person and it is liable to pay the redetermined amount of compensation. Law is well settled that if the land is acquired for a Company then the Company is an interested person (See U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad V/s. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. -- . Thus, if a compensation has been redetermined under Sec. 28A then a direction can be issued to the person interested to pay the amount of enhanced compensation. 9. Question No. 3: So far third question is concerned, in our view, the same cannot be decided as abstrct question of law. It depends upon the facts of the case as to whether such direction can be issued or not. 10. Coming to the lacts of this case, as noticed above, redetermination of the compensation has been made and the enhanced amount of compensation has been awarded to the petitioner. The appeal is pending against the judgment and the award made under Sec. 18 of the Act. If a direction is issued by this Court to pay the entire amount of enhanced compensation to the petitioners in pursuance of an award under Sec. 28A of the Act. The appeal is pending against the judgment and the award made under Sec. 18 of the Act. If a direction is issued by this Court to pay the entire amount of enhanced compensation to the petitioners in pursuance of an award under Sec. 28A of the Act. Thus, in case the appeal as mentioned above is allowed it will create difficulty in making the recovery of the amount. However, it appears that in the first appeal itself no stay has been granted against the award made under Sec. 18 of the Act. In such a situation, denying the benefits of the award made under Sec. 28A in favour of the petitioners will not be just and proper. 11. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the interest of the petitioners as well as the State and B.C.C.L., we are of the view that the 50 per cent of the amount of enhanced compensation should be paid by B.C.C.L. (respondent No. 4) to the petitioner within six months from today on their furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Land Acquisition Officer. The remaining 50 per cent of the enhanced amount of compensation will be paid after disposal of the said First Appeal. It is made clear that in case the aforesaid appeal is allowed and the amount of enhanced compensation is set aside or reduced then, the excess amount of compensation received by the petitioner by refunded by them failing which appropriate steps be taken according to law. 12. In the result, this application is allowed.