Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The lands of respondents 2 and 3 herein situated in different survey numbers of Adrial Village, Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District were acquired for the benefit of the petitioner, by initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’). Award was passed on 03-08-1987, fixing the market value at Rs.16,000/-, 7000/- and Rs.6,000/-, per acre for the lands under categories 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Vast extents of lands belonging to others were also acquired under the same notification. Some of the owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. On reference being made, the matter was taken up as, O.P.No.78 of 1988 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. The Civil Court enhanced the compensation through its order dated 30-10-1989. Respondents 2 and 3 filed applications before the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e. the 1st respondent, under Section 28-A of the Act. The same was rejected by the 1st respondent through order dated 18-11-1992. Aggrieved by that, the respondents 2 and 3 made a request to the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 28A(3) of the Act. When the request was not acceded to, the respondents 2 and 3 filed W.P.No.4918 of 1993. The writ petition was disposed of on 08-11-1993, directing the 1st respondent to take necessary steps. After voluminous correspondence ensued, the 1st respondent passed orders dated 06-12-2000, referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 28-A(3) of the Act. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the reference of the matter to the Civil Court by the 1st respondent, in relation to the claim made by the respondents 2 and 3. The principal contention urged before this Court is that the respondents 2 and 3 did not take any steps to pursue the remedies under Section 18 of the Act and that once their claim is rejected under Section 28-A of the Act, they cannot seek reference to the Civil Court, once again. The understanding of the petitioner about the scheme under Section 28-A does not appear to be correct. The reference of a mater to the Civil Court at the instance of a person, who did not seek reference under Section 18 may appear to be some-what extraordinary. The understanding of the petitioner about the scheme under Section 28-A does not appear to be correct. The reference of a mater to the Civil Court at the instance of a person, who did not seek reference under Section 18 may appear to be some-what extraordinary. However, if one takes into account, the purport of Section 28-A of the Act, the doubt in this regard stands clarified. Section 28-A of the Act reads as under: “Sec.28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.— (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 under section 18, by written 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 re-determined 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. (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.” The provision was included through amendment, with an objective of protecting the interests of the innocent owners of the land, who did not avail the benefit under Section 18 of the Act. The Parliament took note of the fact that reference under Section 18 of the Act is not a matter of course, and much would depend upon the acts and omissions on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer, and that a person whose land is acquired under the same notification must not be given differential treatment. Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A prescribes the procedure, to be followed in this behalf. In case some of the persons whose lands are acquired under a particular notification seek reference to the Civil Court and the same has resulted in the enhancement of compensation, the persons whose lands were acquired under the same notification, but did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act are extended the facility of seeking re-determination of compensation. The only requirement is that the application must be filed within a stipulated time, duly enclosing the certified copy of the order and decree passed in the reference, made at the instance of other persons, covered by the same notification. There exists an element of discretion on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in processing the application filed under Section 28-A of the Act. In fact, it is required to be there. The Civil Court may have enhanced the compensation in respect of the land covered by a particular notification. It is not necessary that the entire land covered by the notification, that too owned by different persons must possess the same attributes and features. In a given case, the land owned by the person, who sought reference, may be more valuable, or less, compared to the one, owned by a person who did not seek reference. The Land Acquisition Officer is required to take these aspects into account, while re-determining the compensation. He need not award the same compensation, as awarded by the trial Court, mechanically. The very use of expression ‘re-determination’ is indicative of the element of discretion, that is vested in the Land Acquisition Officer. On examination of the application filed under Section 28-A, the Land Acquisition Officer may, a) award the same compensation to the applicant, as awarded by the trial Court, b) award less amount of compensation, if the land of the applicant is in a disadvantageous position, or c) reject the application, duly indicating the reasons therefor. On examination of the application filed under Section 28-A, the Land Acquisition Officer may, a) award the same compensation to the applicant, as awarded by the trial Court, b) award less amount of compensation, if the land of the applicant is in a disadvantageous position, or c) reject the application, duly indicating the reasons therefor. The Parliament did not intend to make the order of the Land Acquisition Officer passed under Section 28-A of the Act, as the last word on the issue. It took note of the fact that the only agency, which can re-assess and review the exercise undertaken by a Land Acquisition Officer; is a Civil Court and accordingly provided for reference, under Section 18 of the Act, to such Court, or 30, as the case may be. The exercise of “re-determination” by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28-A is nothing but an extended process of passing the award. The only difference is that the adjudication undertaken by the Civil Court would constitute the basis. The correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on an application, filed under Section 28-A is made subject to the process under Section 28(3), which is similar to the one, under Section 18, vis-à-vis an award pass under Section 11 of the Act. Respondents 2 and 3 did nothing more than invoke Sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act, and wanted the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court. The 1st respondent was bound to do that. When he faltered, respondents 2 and 3 have approached this Court and got a Writ issued. After inordinate delay, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order, referring the matter to the Civil Court. It is just ununderstandable as to how the petitioner can scuttle the legal process. In case the Civil Court finds that the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for the benefit of enhancement of compensation, the petitioner has to squarely blame themselves for the liability incurred by them to pay the interest and other statutory benefits, for a period, exceeding one decade. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, is directed to take up the reference made through the impugned order dated 06-12-2000 forthwith and determine the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, is directed to take up the reference made through the impugned order dated 06-12-2000 forthwith and determine the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous petition filed in the writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.