Judgment 1. In this appeal the Government challenges the award of the reference court in a reference under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. One of the grounds raised is that in the operative portion of the impugned judgment several mistakes have crept in and they are liable to be corrected. As for the above ground, we permit the appellant Government to move the reference court itself for correction of the mistakes by filing appropriate application under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code Civil Procedure. Another ground which is seriously raised in the appeal is that the court below has awarded compensation towards injurious affection in respect of unacquired property belonging to the respondent. It is urged that in a reference under Section 28-A(3) no compensation can be awarded in respect of unacquired property. Sri. C.R.Shyamkumar, Senior Government Pleader would place strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kamalakshi Amma v. Special Tahsildar, 2004(2) KLT 716 which was authored by one among us (P.C.K.(J)). It was argued that in a reference under Section 28(A) there is no scope for awarding compensation towards injurious affection of the unacquired property. 2. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned senior Govt. Pleader. The legislative intendment underlying Section 28-A which was introduced through the Amendment Act, Act 68 of 1984 is that the illiterate and inarticulate Indian who on account of ignorance or for other reasons was unable to make an application for reference under Section 18 should be awarded the same land value as was awarded by the reference court to his neighbour who had applied for a reference under Section 18 if both the properties were acquired pursuant to the very same Section 4(1) Notification. Compensation for injurious affection is a compensation to be given in respect of property which is not actually acquired. It is a compensation for the diminution in the value of the unacquired property as a direct consequence of the acquisition of the acquired property. It is difficult to conceive a situation of two persons having identical claims for compensation for injurious affection of their unacquired properties. Section 28-A(3) contemplates re-determination of market value or compensation in respect of the acquired property only. It is difficult to conceive a situation of two persons having identical claims for compensation for injurious affection of their unacquired properties. Section 28-A(3) contemplates re-determination of market value or compensation in respect of the acquired property only. It appears that the learned Subordinate Judge was carried away by the provisions in Section 28-A(3) which are to the effect that “the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such references as they subject to reference under Section 18”. It is very clear to our mind that clause fourthly of Section 23(1) which enables the reference court to award compensation for injurious affection or diminution in the value of the unacquired property will not have application in a reference under Section 28-A(3). In this view of the matter we modify the impugned judgment and decree and delete the compensation awarded under the same towards injurious affection to the responded claimant.