JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Since both these First Appeals have been preferred against the same land acquisition proceedings claiming enhanced compensation and are inter-knitted, therefore, these First Appeals are being decided by this one and common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Shri Kant, learned counsel for the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri M.K. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents in First Appeal No. 565 of 1989 and for the Appellants in First Appeal No. 554 of 2001 and perused the materials on record. 3. The present First Appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been preferred by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad against the respondents, land owners, farmers, and by the land owners against the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred as the Parishad) for enhancement of their compensation. These First Appeals have been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 6th May, 1989,passed by the District Judge, Meerut, rendered while answering Land Acquisition Reference No. 182 of 1988, by which the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for the land acquired and fixed the same at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. The Reference Court has also awarded additional amount of compensation as interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In addition to this, solatium and other benefits have also been allowed to the land owners. 4. The connected First Appeal No. 554 of 2001 has been filed by Din Mohammad and others seeking higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. yard, that is, more than Rs. 10/= per sq. yard as awarded by the Reference Court, that is, District Judge, Meerut. 5. It has emerged from the record that the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, in furtherance of implementing a Housing Scheme in the urban area of District Meerut, has initiated land acquisition proceedings for which a notification under Section 36 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, as is applicable to the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, was issued on 22.10.1956. Notification under Section 32(1) of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, which is equivalent to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 21.10.1959. Notification under Section 32(1) of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, which is equivalent to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 21.10.1959. The possession of the land was taken over. The references were adjudicated upon. The Reference Court, that is, District Judge, Meerut, vide the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1985 had enhanced compensation, except for one plot, that is Plot No. 135 as no challenge was made in respect of Plot No. 135 alongwith other plots. The reason for not challenging the award in respect of this plot was that there was a dispute pending with some third party. Under these compelling circumstances, the land owners did not seek a reference for Plot No. 135. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6, herein, agriculturists of Village Aurangshahpur, District Meerut, had filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference before the District Judge in respect of the plot No. 135, acquired by the Parishad. 6. Lateron, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act was amended and Section 28-A was inserted by an amending Act No. 68 of 1984. This Section provides for re-determination of amount of compensation. 7. The land owners, who claim themselves to be poor farmers of the District Meerut, immediately sought a reference and submitted a formal application to the Special Land Acquisition Officer within three months of the said judgment of 26.2.1985. This reference was adjudicated upon and the District Judge, Meerut, maintaining the parity with the other cases and the compensation awarded to the land owners of the adjoining plots had allowed them the same compensation, that is, at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. 8. The State of U.P. as well as U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad had resisted the reference on the ground that the reference on the ground that the reference itself was not maintainable under Section 28-A of the Act. The claimant, landowners, did not choose to seek a reference against Plot No. 135 at the time when they had availed the opportunity of challenging the award in respect of other plots. Their conduct would amount to waiver of their rights to claim the compensation in respect of the said plot. The claimant, landowners, did not choose to seek a reference against Plot No. 135 at the time when they had availed the opportunity of challenging the award in respect of other plots. Their conduct would amount to waiver of their rights to claim the compensation in respect of the said plot. The reference was barred by the principles of estoppel as indicated under Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. The following issues were framed by the Reference Court : (i) Whether the application moved under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is maintainable? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation on the basis of the compensation awarded earlier in L.A. Reference No. 169/ 1978, Allah Mehar v. State of U.P. and another? (iii) To what relief, if any, are the claimants entitled? 9. The impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court has been challenged by the Parishad on the ground that it was patently illegal and unwarranted. The respondents, land owners, are not entitled for enhanced compensation, solatium and interest etc. The Reference Court had ignored that the reference was barred by limitation under Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. The respondents, land owners, were estopped from claiming enhanced compensation. The provisions of Section 28-A of the Act were to be invoked within the period of limitation. The Reference Court erred in holding that the reference was maintainable. 10. The Court below has acted illegally in proceeding with the case treating as a reference under Section 28-A(3) of the Act, which was not permissible. There was a delay in approaching the Court and there existed no provision under U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam equivalent to Section 5 of the Indian Limitation or under the relevant provisions dealing with Acquisition proceedings under the Act. The acquisition of the land was made under the provisions of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam and as such the provisions of amending Section 28-A of 1984 of the Act are not applicable. 11. Considered the arguments of leaned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record as well as impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Reference Court, that is, the District Judge, Meerut. 12. 11. Considered the arguments of leaned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record as well as impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Reference Court, that is, the District Judge, Meerut. 12. The District Judge, Meerut, while interpreting Section 28-A of the Act has held in the impugned judgment that it was clearly provided in the new Section 28-A of the Act that where in an award, the Court allows to the land owners any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, the persons interested in all the other lands covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not been made an application to the Collector under Section 18 required to be made within three months of the date of the award that the amount of compensation may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation earlier awarded by the Court. The Court of the District Judge, Meerut had already allowed amount of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard in respect of the similarly situated land having similar potential, nature and status situated in the same vicinity. 13. It was also submitted by the land owners before the Reference Court as well as in this Court in the connected Appeal No. 554 of 2001, Din Mohammad and others v. State of U.P. and another that for inferior quality of land, the Reference Court had allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. The respondents, land owners, land was of superior quality and located near the urban area of the Meerut City at a better place and approachable having all the urban facilities. Thus, they are also entitled for similar compensation at the same rate. 14. It was also demonstrated before the Court that the same land, after some time, was leased out by the Parishad at the rate of Rs. 600/- per sq. yard, that is, more than sixty times of the amount of compensation allowed to the poor farmers, who had lost their land, which was their only source of livelihood for establishing a Housing Colony by the Parishad. 600/- per sq. yard, that is, more than sixty times of the amount of compensation allowed to the poor farmers, who had lost their land, which was their only source of livelihood for establishing a Housing Colony by the Parishad. It has been rightly held by the learned Reference Court, the District Judge, Meerut that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act were applicable in the present case. 15. The judgment rendered by the District Judge, Meerut finds strength from a Division Bench’s judgment of this Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Katju and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, reported in 1996 AWC 1238, Nanak and others v. State of U.P. and others. Some observations of the said judgment are being reproduced below : “7. The scope of provisions of Section 28A was considered by the Supreme Court in Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 151 and the Court placed particular emphasis on Para 2 (ix) of the objects and reasons which provided for a special and particular discriminatory advantage for inarticulate and poor people to apply for re-determination of the compensation amount on the basis of the Court award in a land acquisition reference filed by the comparatively affluent land owner. The Apex Court observed as under : “Section 28A in terms does not apply to the case of the petitioners.............they do not belong to that class of society for whose benefit the provision is intended and meant, i.e., inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On the contrary, the petitioners belong to an affluent class. .............................................. 9. In Babua Ram v. State of U.P., 1995 (2) SCC 689 , the Apex Court again approved and reiterated the law laid down in Mewa Ram (supra) and observed as under : “Legislature made a discriminatory policy between the poor and inarticulate as one class of persons to whom the benefit of Section 28A was to be extended and comparatively affluent who had taken advantage of the reference under Section 18 and the latter as a class to which the benefit of Section 28A was not extended. Otherwise, the phraseology of the language of the non-obstante clause would have been differently worded.............It is true that the Legislature intended to relieve hardship to the poor, indigent and inarticulate interested persons who generally failed to avail the reference under Section 18 which is an existing bar and to remedy it, Section 28A was enacted giving a right and remedy for re-determination.........The Legislature appears to have presumed that the same state of affairs continue to subsist among the poor and inarticulate persons and they generally fail to avail the right under sub-section (1) of Section 18 due to poverty or ignorance or avoidance of expropriation..............Parliament made conscious discrimination between the poor and inarticulate as a class and comparatively affluent as another class and conferred the rights under Section 28A in favour of the former.........Section 28A is just and fair and does not violate Article 14. The procedure, therefore, is just and fair and does not violate Article 21.” 16. Their Lordships, in similar circumstances, had held that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended) are applicable only in the cases of ‘Little Indians’ because of their poverty. Paragraph 12 of the judgment is being reproduced below : “12. Thus, it is clear from the above, that the provisions of Section 28A is applicable only in a case of ‘Little Indians’ who because of their poverty and ignorance cannot afford to file the reference under Section 18 of the Act and if an application under the said provision is filed by a person of that class, the same cannot be decided unless the Court’s award on the basis of which the said application has been filed does not attain the finality. However, the provisions of Section 28A are not intended to be windfall for every landholder whose land had been acquired under the same land acquisition proceedings.” 17. In the present case, the claimants, land owners, are poor farmers of the Meerut District, not Builders or Colonisers or Developers. It is noteworthy that for the land acquired in the same vicinity, reference had been allowed and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. Even inferior quality of land was rated at a higher price. It is noteworthy that for the land acquired in the same vicinity, reference had been allowed and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. Even inferior quality of land was rated at a higher price. This Court has also scrutinised the impugned judgment in the light of a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) AWC 1617 (SC), Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-L.A.O. v. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. and found that the impugned judgment order of the Reference Court is a legally sound, detailed and reasoned judgment, which does not require any interference. 18. In view of the discussions made above, the First Appeals, being devoid of merits, are dismissed. 19. No order as to cost. ————