Judgment Mohit S. Shah, J.—The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order dated 26.8.2003, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojna, Unit-18, Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”) rejecting the review application made by the petitioners, five in number, for enhancement of the compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. The petitioners’ lands in Village Ambasan of Chanasma Taluka in Mehsana District were acquired for the purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. The notification under Section 4 was published on 19.12.1992 and the notification under Section 6 was published on 2.9.1993. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11(1) was declared on 27.3.1995. As per the said award, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of only Rs. 2.40paise per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs. 1.60paise per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land. The petitioners did not submit any application under Section 18 of the Act, but in the reference made at the instance of other landowners, whose lands were also acquired under the said notification, the Reference Court in the award dated 31.3.2001 enhanced compensation amounts by Rs. 13.60paise per sq. mtr. over and above the amount of compensation already awarded by Land Acquisition Officer. In view of the said award of the Reference Court, the petitioners herein, filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act on 9.5.2001 and, therefore, the applications were made very much within the period of limitation. However, by order dated 26.8.2003, the LAO rejected the petitioners’ applications under Section 28 of the Act on the ground that the petitioners’ applications were not accompanied by any certified copy of the judgment and award of the Reference Court. When the petitioners came to learn that the petitioners were not required to submit any certified copy of the judgment and award and consequently the applications were made within the period of limitation, the petitioners filed a review application before the Reference Court in the year 2006 and the same was rejected by the Reference Court on 16.1.2009. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that even in Sukhdeo vs. State of U.P., AIR 1992 Allahabad 142, and thereafter, in Ramanbhai Mahijibhai vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojna, Unit-5, Vadodara, 2005 (2) GLR 1053 , it has been held that the application under Section 28-A of the Act is not required to be accompanied with the certified copy of the judgment and award, if the application is made within period of limitation. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the said legal position, the respondent committed gross illegality in dismissing the petitioners’ applications only on the ground that the applications were not accompanied by the certified copy of the judgment and award of the Reference Court. As regards the delay in filing this petition, Mr. Prajapati has submitted that within a period of 1/2 month of the award of the Reference Court, the petitioners had made applications under Section 28-A of the Act on 9.5.2001 and thereafter, the respondent himself took about more than 2 years to consider and decide the petitioners’ applications dated 9.5.2001. It is submitted that after rejection of the applications, the petitioners did not know about any further remedy available to them. They were advised that as per the decision rendered in the case of Ramanbhai Mahijibhai (supra), the certified copy of the judgment and award was not required to be produced with the application for enhancement of the compensation, if such an application was made within period of limitation. Hence, the petitioners had immediately filed the review application before the respondent in the year 2006, however, the review application came to be rejected only on 16.1.2009 and, therefore, the delay in filing the petition deserves to be condoned. 4. On the other hand Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned AGP for the respondent, has opposed the petition and submitted that in State of A.P. vs. Marri Venkaiah, 2003 (7) SCC 280 , the Apex Court has already held that the delay in filing the application under Section 28-A of the Act, cannot be condoned. The Apex Court also rejected the contention that the claimants are poor and illiterate and therefore, they may not be in a position to file application within period of limitation. The Apex Court also rejected the contention that the claimants are poor and illiterate and therefore, they may not be in a position to file application within period of limitation. However, the Court negatived that contention on the ground that there may not be any finality to the award and compensation awarded, otherwise cost of the project would go up and there would be uncertainty for all time to come. 5. The learned AGP has further submitted that condoning the delay in filing the writ petition would result into the liability of the respondent to pay interest for a long period commencing from the date of possession taken in 1995 and entertaining the petition after delay of four years would cause irreparable injury to the public exchequer. In rejoinder Mr. Prajapti states that since the petitioners do not want to take any advantage for the alleged delay in making applications under Section 28-A of the Act and that the petitioners, therefore, may not be paid any interest beyond the period of 26.8.2003, but the petitioners shall be paid interest atleast up to date of rejection of their applications under Section 28-A of the Act i.e. 26.8.2003. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, we find considerable substance in the submissions of the petitioners advocate that the petitioners applications under Section 28-A of the Act for enhancement of the compensation were to be heard by Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer, who were themselves party to the Land Reference Cases before the Reference Court and, therefore, the petitioners’ application under Section 28-A of the Act made within the period of limitation could not be rejected only on the ground that the applications were not accompanied by certified copy of the judgment and award of the Reference Court. 7. It is submitted that it is only when the petitioners make applications for certified copy of the judgment and award of the Reference Court before the expiry of the period of limitation of 90 days and thereafter, the certified copy of the judgment and award is ready for delivery, that the period taken for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and award is required to be excluded but when the applications are made within period of limitation, it is not mandatory for the claimant to produce certified copy of the judgment and award. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Ramanbhai Mahijibhai and Ors. (Supra) and Sukhdeo and Others (Supra). 8. We find considerable substance in the above submission. The learned AGP is also not in a position to defend the order dated 26.8.2003 on merits, but the learned AGP would submit that in view of the gross delay of almost six years in filing the present petition, no relief may be granted to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the reasoning given by the Apex Court in 2003 (7) SCC 280 , would apply to the facts of the present case also, as the public exchequer shall not be burdened with the liability for interest at a higher rate by this orders, and also because there will be no finality to the award and the public authority getting out that project, would never apply to the respondent what would be the exact cost of acquisition of the land for the concerned project. 9. There is some substance in the submission made by the learned AGP on behalf of the respondent. As per the settled legal position, whether a petition should be entertained or should be rejected on the ground of delay has to be always decided in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. After the judgment and award of the Reference Court rendered on 31.3.2001, the petitioners had submitted their applications on 9.5.2001 i.e. just within 45 days against the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days. The respondent himself, however took more than two years to decide the applications and that too erroneously rejected it on the ground of non-production of certified copy of the judgment and award of the Reference Court. Since the petitioners came to know about judgment rendered by this Court in Ramanbhai Mahijibhai (Supra), the petitioners filed the review application before the respondent in the year 2006, and their application also came to be decided by the respondent after a period of 2 years. 10. Since the petitioners came to know about judgment rendered by this Court in Ramanbhai Mahijibhai (Supra), the petitioners filed the review application before the respondent in the year 2006, and their application also came to be decided by the respondent after a period of 2 years. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since respondent himself had not acted expeditious in considering the petitioners’ applications especially the first application, which was made within period of limitation and was rejected on the ground, that it was not in accordance with law, and also in view of the fact that the consequence of dismissing this petition would be that the petitioners will not get anything more than the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, at the rate of Rs. 2.40paise per sq. mtr. for the irrigated land and at the rate of Rs. 1.60paise per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land, and that even as per the award of the Reference Court, the landholders - other farmers have received additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 13.60paise per sq. mtr. with further statutory benefits and also in view of the above statement made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners do not claim any interest for the period beyond 26.8.2003, this Court is of the view that the discretion of this Court is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. 11. The impugned order dated 26.8.2003 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojna, Unit-18, Mehsana at Annexure-A, is quashed and set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the petitioners’ applications under Section 28-A of the Act made on 9/11.5.2009, as made in accordance with law, and to consider and decide the same on merits within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Rule is made absolute.