L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE three civil Revision Petitions (CRPs), filed under section 115 CPC, arise under identical set of facts and involve same question of law. Hence, they are disposed of through common order. ( 2 ) THE lands of the respondents in various survey numbers of Badgoni Village of Nandipet Mandal of Nizamabad District, were acquired by the Government through notification under Section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act (for short the Act ) in G. O. Rt. No. 1063 dated 19-10-1970. The same was published in the Gazette on 8-4-1971. Award was passed by the petitioner fixing the compensation payable to the respondents. Not being satisfied with the compensation, the respondents sought for reference under Section 18 of the act. The petitioner referred the cases to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, the same were taken up and tried as op. Nos. 176 of 1979 and batch. The compensation awarded by the petitioner herein was enhanced by the Sub-Court, through its common judgment dated 9-11-1979. The judgment of the Sub-Court became final. ( 3 ) AS regards some of the lands covered by the same notification, references under Section 18 came to be tried as o. P. Nos. 298/1982 and batch by the Court of Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. Those O. Ps. , were disposed of through common judgment dated 20-4-1986. The enhancement in this batch of O. Ps. was more than the one ordered in O. P. No. 176/ 79 and batch by the Sub-Court. The petitioner preferred appeals against the judgment in O. P. No. 298/82 and Batch in this Court. The appeals were dismissed on 15-2-1988. ( 4 ) CLAIMING that the lands covered by o. P. Nos. 176/79 and batch on the file of the Sub-Court, Nizamabad are identical, the respondents filed applications in I. A. Nos. 1123/ 89 and batch in the respective O. Ps. , under Sections 151 and 152 CPC read with section 28-A of the Act, before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as the ADJ s Court), for redetermination of the compensation in respect of their lands. 1123/ 89 and batch in the respective O. Ps. , under Sections 151 and 152 CPC read with section 28-A of the Act, before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as the ADJ s Court), for redetermination of the compensation in respect of their lands. It was their case that inasmuch as the compensation in respect of the lands of the same village and covered by the same notification were determined at higher rate in O. P. No. 298/82 and batch by that Court, they too were entitled for the compensation at the same rate. ( 5 ) THE petitioner resisted the applications. It was pleaded that the applications were not maintainable at all. It was their contention that the respondents were not parties to the proceedings before the ADJ s Court and that Section 28a of the Act does not enable the landowners to file applications before the Courts to redetermine the compensation. The ADJ s court allowed the applications placing reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi high Court, Ram Mehar v. Union of India (AIR 1989 Del. 130) and directed that the respondents are entitled for compensation at the same rates as fixed in O. P. No. 298/82 and batch. The CRPs are directed against the orders so passed. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Arbitration submits that the judgments rendered in the O. Ps. , relating to the lands of the respondents became final and they were not entitled to any further enhancement of compensation. He states that the benefit under Section 28a is applicable only to such of me landowners who have not sought for reference under Section 18. The respondents who had the benefit of reference under Section 18 of the Act have no right to invoke the provisions of section 28a. He states that the ADJ s court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the applications inasmuch as it did not try and adjudicate the O. Ps. , relating to the lands of the respondents. ( 7 ) SRI S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the lands of the respondents and those of the claimants in O. P. No. 298/82 and batch were covered by the same notification and situated in the same village. , relating to the lands of the respondents. ( 7 ) SRI S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the lands of the respondents and those of the claimants in O. P. No. 298/82 and batch were covered by the same notification and situated in the same village. According to him, the disparity in the enhancement ordered by the Sub-Court, on one hand, and the adj s Court, on the other, cannot be permitted and the ADJ s Court was competent to exercise its inherent powers to remove the disparity. He submits that the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in ram Mehar case (supra) squarely covers the facts of this case and no interference is called for. ( 8 ) IT is a matter of record that the lands of the respondents in various survey numbers have been acquired under the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act which was published on 8-4-1971. The respondents were paid the compensation. On their request, the cases were referred to the Sub-Court, Nizamabad, under Section 18 of the Act. The references were taken and tried as O. P. No. 176/79 and batch. The compensation was awarded by the petitioner i. e. , the Land Acquisition Officer, was enhanced by the Sub-Court, through common judgment dated 9-11-1979. From the record it is not evident that neither the petitioner nor the respondents have preferred any appeal against the same. It looks as though the judgment in the O. Ps. , have become final. ( 9 ) AS regards some of the lands covered by the same notification, another award appears to have been passed and on the request made by the respective landowners, references were made. This set of references were taken up and tried by the ADJ s Court at Nizamabad, as o. P. No. 298/82 and batch. Through a common judgment dated 20-4-1986, the adj s Court enhanced the compensation as regards some items of land. The enhancement ordered by the ADJ s court O. P. No. 298/82 and batch was more than the one ordered by the Sub-Court in O. P. No. 176/79 and batch. The appeals preferred against the judgment and decrees in o. P. Nos. 298/82 and batch were dismissed on 15-2-1988 by this Court. The enhancement ordered by the ADJ s court O. P. No. 298/82 and batch was more than the one ordered by the Sub-Court in O. P. No. 176/79 and batch. The appeals preferred against the judgment and decrees in o. P. Nos. 298/82 and batch were dismissed on 15-2-1988 by this Court. ( 10 ) THE respondents filed applications before the ADJ s Court for redetermination of the compensation on par with the one ordered in O. P. Nos. 298/82 and batch. The applications were filed under Sections 151 and 152 CPC read with Section 28a of the Act. The applications filed by the respondents were not maintainable for more reasons than one. ( 11 ) FIRSTLY, the power to redetermine the compensation in respect of an acquired land is specifically conferred upon the collector under Section 28a of the Act. To invoke the jurisdiction under Section 28a, the applicant has to satisfy the following conditions: (a) The land belonging to the applicant as well as certain others were acquired under the same notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act; (b) The applicant did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Act, whereas the owners of other lands covered by notification have sought for reference; (c) On reference, the Civil Court has enhanced the compensation; (d) The applicant obtained a copy of the judgment and decree and submitted the application within three months enclosing a copy of the decree of the Civil Court. ( 12 ) IN the present case, the respondents have already availed the benefit of reference under Section 18 of the Act and the compensation in respect of their lands was enhanced by the Sub-Court. Section 28a does not cover such cases. It does not take in its fold the cases of disparity of enhancement by the Civil Court in different set of references in respect of lands covered by the same notification. At any rate, the Section does not empower the courts to redetermine the compensation, to be on par with determination in another case. Therefore, the applications filed by the respondents, were not maintainable at all. At any rate, the Section does not empower the courts to redetermine the compensation, to be on par with determination in another case. Therefore, the applications filed by the respondents, were not maintainable at all. ( 13 ) SECONDLY, it needs to be observed that even assuming that the application under Section 28a of the Act was maintainable, in a Civil Court, such applications, if at all, ought to have been filed in the Court which decided the reference of the applicants seeking redetermination. The references of the respondents were tried by the Sub-Court, nizamabad, whereas the applications were filed in the ADJ s Court at Nizamabad. Even assuming that independent of section 28a, the Civil Court has power to pass appropriate orders, such inherent powers are to be exercised with reference to the main proceedings before that very Court, where the references in the form of O. P. Nos. 176/79 and batch were tried and disposed of. It was not understandable as to how and on what basis the ADJ s Court had entertained the applications filed by the respondents. OP. No. 176/79 and batch in which the applications were filed by the respondents were not at all decided by that Court. Therefore, there was no jurisdiction or justification for the ADJ s Court, Nizamabad, to entertain the applications. ( 14 ) THE sole basis for the respondents applications and passing the orders under revisions was the judgment in Ram Maher case (supra ). The facts of that case are totally different from the one on hand. The lands of the appellant before the Delhi High court as well as another were acquired by the Government. The Land Acquisition officer fixed the compensation at Rs. 2,500/- per bigha. On reference under Section 18, at the instance of the appellant, the trial court enhanced the compensation to rs. 3,000/- per bigha. In appeal before the delhi High Court, it was enhanced to rs. 3,500/- per bigha through judgment dated 31-1-1978 ( 15 ) IN the reference at the instance of owner of the other piece of land, the trial court enhanced the compensation to rs. 3,500/- and on appeal, the High Court enhanced the same to Rs. 10,000/- per bigha, through judgment dated 1-5-1980. Pointing out this disparity, the applicant filed an application for redetermination of the compensation in his appeal. 3,500/- and on appeal, the High Court enhanced the same to Rs. 10,000/- per bigha, through judgment dated 1-5-1980. Pointing out this disparity, the applicant filed an application for redetermination of the compensation in his appeal. The Division bench of the Delhi High Court referred to the provisions of Section 28a of the Act and categorically observed that it does not intend to express any opinion as to its applicability in relation to the facts of that case. It has exercised the inherent powers vested in it in directing that the compensation be paid to the appellant before it at the same rate viz. , Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. It may be observed that the appellant therein filed an application in his own proceedings which were decided by that very Court. The disparity occurred at the hands of the same Court and the same was sought to be removed in exercise of the inherent powers. ( 16 ) IN the present case, the enhancement at a higher rate was done by the ADJ s court, Nizamabad, whereas the proceedings in relation to the respondents became final in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, nizamabad. Even if there exists any legal basis, it was only the Court of Subordinate judge that could have entertained the applications. Under no circumstances, the additional District Judge, Nizamabad, can be said to have any basis or jurisdiction to entertain the applications. ( 17 ) VIEW from any angle, the orders passed by the Additional District judge, Nizamabad, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the orders under Revision are set aside and the CRPs are allowed. No costs.