JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule. Returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard both the sides. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3rd January, 2000 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No. III, Panvel, Dist. Raigad rejecting the petitioners' claim for payment of 40% of the amount of award dated 5th February, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1, which was towards their share for compensation as the landlords of the land which has been acquired. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the land in question is an agricultural land at village Karanjade, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. The said land was acquired for New Bombay Project in the year 1970. The acquisition proceedings culminated in the Award passed by the authorities on 19th September, 1986. Subsequently, since an award in respect of the neighbouring land, which was also acquired under the same notification, was passed on 21-12-1995, granting the market value higher than the rate granted to the petitioners under the Award dated 19th September, 1986, the tenant in respect of the suit land Shri Bhagat made an application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 18th May, 1996. The said application was entertained by the authorities and order was passed thereon on 5th February, 1998 accepting the plea of the said Shri Bhagat, the tenant in respect of the suit land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by the said order redetermined the market value of the suit land and awarded additional amount equivalent to the market value granted in respect of the neighbouring land. Pursuant to the said redetermination dated 5th February, 1998, 60% of the redetermined amount has been disbursed to the said Shri Bhagat, tenant in respect of the suit land towards his share. Whereas, the remaining 40% has been retained by the authorities. The petitioners being the owners of the suit land, therefore, made an application on 10th December, 1999 praying that the amount of 40% which has been retained under the redetermination award dated 5th February, 1998 be made over to them. Whereas, the remaining 40% has been retained by the authorities. The petitioners being the owners of the suit land, therefore, made an application on 10th December, 1999 praying that the amount of 40% which has been retained under the redetermination award dated 5th February, 1998 be made over to them. The said request of the petitioners has been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the petitioners did not make application under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act along with the tenant Shri Bhagat or independently hence they were not entitled for the said amount. It is this view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that once the redetermination has been done whether at the instance of the tenant or a co-owner, the additional benefit arising under the redetermination award should also enure to the benefit of other co-owner or tenant in respect of the said land, as the case may be. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court dated 21st January, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 2550 of 1998 in the case of (Mahadeo Shankar Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra)1. It would be useful to refer to paragraph 5 of the said decision which reads thus : "5. Mr. Sawant, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners, brings to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in (A. Viswanatha Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar for Land Acquisition)2, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1966 in which it has been laid down that a co-owner as much as owner of the entire property as the sole owner of the property and that, unless a partition had taken place, the co-owner of the property whose property has been acquired would be entitled to receive compensation prorata. The Supreme Court further pointed out, "The State would plead no waiver nor omission by other co-owners to seek reference nor disentitle them to an award to the extent of their legal entitlement when in law they are entitled to". It is, therefore, obvious that when the enhancement of compensation was made under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act it enured for the benefit of all the co-owners of the property who has been awarded compensation earlier in the references. It is, therefore, obvious that when the enhancement of compensation was made under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act it enured for the benefit of all the co-owners of the property who has been awarded compensation earlier in the references. Merely because the present petitioners did not make separate application their rights cannot become extinguished or waived as is sought to be done". 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that it was incumbent upon the petitioners, who were the land owners, to make an independent application under section 28-A of the Act and since no such application was made, the petitioners were not entitled to take advantage of the redetermination done at the instance of the application of the tenant, Shri Bhagat. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, we have no hesitation in concluding that the plea taken on behalf of the respondents is totally misconceived. Section 28- A of the Land Acquisition Act reads thus : "28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of this.---(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 11, 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 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-section (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. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (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-section (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 sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18." 7. It is needless to mention that section 28-A of the Act is a beneficial legislation and needs to be so construed. From the plain language of sub section (1) thereof, it would be seen that any person interested in the land in question is entitled to make an application under section 28-A of the Act for redetermination of the market value of the land in terms of the Award passed in respect of the neighbouring land under the same notification issued under section 4 of the Act. The provision does not postulate that all the interested persons would make an application for the same relief. We cannot, therefore, permit an interpretation to read this requirement into the said provision, for it would be doing violence to the legislative intent. The only restriction placed under the said provision is that the aggrieved person (s), shall make such an application within 3 months from the date of the award of the Court in respect for the neighbouring land under the same notification on the basis of which redetermination of the market value of the land in question is sought under the said provisions. The view that we propose to take is also fortified from the language of sub-section (2) which clearly indicates that the Collector on receipt of the application made under sub-section (1) is obliged to conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested in the land in question. The view that we propose to take is also fortified from the language of sub-section (2) which clearly indicates that the Collector on receipt of the application made under sub-section (1) is obliged to conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested in the land in question. The purpose of giving notice to all the interested persons with regard to the land in question is obvious, inasmuch as, all the interested persons would get reasonable opportunity of being heard and can persuade the Collector to make an award in their favour determining the amount of compensation in terms of award passed in respect of the neighbouring land. In other words, what appears to us is that, one of the interested person can move an application under section 28-A of the Act so as to ignite the process of redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award passed in respect of some other land under the same notification. This provision, obviously takes colour from the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, for to provide equal market value in respect of all the lands under the same notification issued under section 4 of the Act. Understood thus, the only possible view that can be taken in the context of this provision is that, one of the interested person can initiate the proceedings for redetermination of the amount of compensation under the said provisions and if such an application is moved, it is obligatory on the Collector to give notice to all the interested persons and provide them reasonable opportunity of being heard before making an award determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the land in question. It would be preposterous to hold that an interested person, although entitled for a notice under sub-section (2) of the Act, before redetermination is done by the Collector, albeit at the instance of one or more interested persons, but such person who appears before the Collector in response to the notice received under sub-section (2) of the Act would be denuded of his right of being treated equally with other interested person who only happen to be the applicants and responsible for initiating the proceedings. Such an interpretation cannot be countenanced at all, for even sub-section (3) would clearly throw light on the plain language of sub-section (3) of the Act, it would appear that any person interested in the land is entitled to carry the matter by way of reference. If the legislature wanted to restrict the benefit under the said provision only to the person who had made application under sub-section (1), in that case, surely the legislature would not have employed the expression "any person" in sub-section (3) but would have restricted to "aggrieved applicant". In our view, as the said provision obligates the Collector to give notice to all the interested persons before redetermination of the compensation; and once a person appears before the Collector pursuant to such notice, surely such a person cannot be deprived of the benefit of redetermination of the amount. Moreover, the redetermination of the amount is done in respect of market value of the land, in terms of the award passed in respect of the neighbouring land falling under the same notification under section 4, but not with regard to the share of the person who makes the application under the said provisions. Once redetermination is made, it is irrelevant as to at whose instance the same has been done, but the respondents/authorities are under an obligation to give benefit of the said redetermination to all the interested persons irrespective of whether they had preferred any application or not. Only this approach would fulfil the letter and spirit of section 28-A of the Act. On this interpretation, the only possible and permissible view is that, all persons who are interested in the land in question would be entitled to share the benefit arising on account of the redetermination award on pro-rata basis as per their respective entitlement and none of the interested person whether co-owner or a tenant can be deprived of the benefit merely on the ground that he had not preferred any application under section 28(1) of the Act. The view which we have taken is consistent with the view taken by the Apex Court as noticed by this Court in the decision dated 21-1-1999 in Writ Petition No. 255 of 1998 which is extracted in para 4 above. 8. The view which we have taken is consistent with the view taken by the Apex Court as noticed by this Court in the decision dated 21-1-1999 in Writ Petition No. 255 of 1998 which is extracted in para 4 above. 8. If the above view is applied to the facts on hand, the impugned order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 3-1-2000 cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Besides that what appears to us is that no notice was given to the petitioners by the Collector in terms of sub section (2) of the Act before redetermination of the amount of compensation pursuant to the application made by the tenant Shri Bhagat in respect of the suit land. Atleast no record was brought to our notice to rebut this position. In the circumstances it is wholly inappropriate on the part of the respondents to resist the petitioner's claim, whereas the impugned order is illegal. 9. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in allowing the petitioners' prayer and issue direction to the respondent to forthwith pay 40% of the amount of the award dated 5th February, 1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner towards their proportionate share in the amount of compensation in respect of the suit land as early as possible preferably within three months from the receipt of writ from this Court. We therefore allow this writ petition and make the rule absolute in terms of prayers (b) and (c). No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. -----