JUDGMENT Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court is a Corporation of the State of U.P. who has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Collector, Nainital dated 05.05.2014, by which the Collector has allowed the application of private respondents, which was moved under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by which he has re-determined the compensation earlier awarded to the private respondents. 2. A notification came from the Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 10.10.1980 expressing its intention to acquire a particular land of Village and Tehsil-Kichcha, District - Nainital (Now in District Udham Singh Nagar). Thereafter, the proceedings went under the old Land Acquisition Act and the award was given by the Collector on 11.09.1986. The present private respondents did not go for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Other land owners whose land was acquired under the same notification dated 10.10.1980, however, went in reference. The reference court enhanced the compensation in their favour and gave its order on 12.04.2006. This land is recorded in Khasra No. 367, Village-Kichha. Present respondents moved an application for enhancement of compensation, which was passed in their favour under the provision of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 07.03.2007. Section 28-A, which has been inserted in the Land Acquisition Act by way of an amendment, eads as under:- “28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of 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 II, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (I) 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 (I), 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.]” 3. Earlier such an application as moved by the private respondents was not being disposed of by the Collector, therefore, aggrieved, the private respondents filed a writ petition, before this Court, which was disposed of by directing the Collector to pass an order on their pending application in accordance with law. Now the Collector, Nainital passed an order dated 05.05.2014, in which he came to the conclusion that as regarding the same land, the compensation has been enhanced by the learned Additional District Judge/II F.T.C., Nainital in Land Acquisition Reference No. 512 of 1988 (Mool Chand vs. State of Uttaranchal) and Land Acquisition Reference No. 514 if 1988 (Dara Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal), the private respondents are also liable to get the same benefit and, therefore, the Collector ordered that the same compensation be given to the private respondents as well. 4. The petitioners who were the beneficiary have filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Collector, Nainital dated 05.05.2014. 5. The challenge of petitioners rests on only one question of law which is that the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act could have been filed by the private respondents within a period of three months of the award, and since it has not been done the application was not maintainable. 6. 5. The challenge of petitioners rests on only one question of law which is that the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act could have been filed by the private respondents within a period of three months of the award, and since it has not been done the application was not maintainable. 6. The award is dated 12.04.2006 and the application was filed by private respondents under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 07.03.2007, therefore, it is well beyond a period of three months and such an application was not liable to be looked into by the Collector, the petitioner herein submits. 7. In its reply, the private respondents state that indeed award of the reference court is dated 12.04.2006 but that award had wrongly mentioned the land in question as plot of Khasra No.267, as the land in question is Khasra No.367. Concerned applicants consequently moved an application for correction and the order was corrected only on 08.01.2007. Hence, the period of limitation would start from 08.01.2007 and not from 12.04.1006. This reasoning has been accepted by the Collector while deciding as to the limitation aspect, as such objection was there before the Collector as well. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Pradeep Kumar Rai and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 736 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that following conditions must be looked into while deciding an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act:- “(i) An award has been made by the court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28-A. (ii) By the said award the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference. (iii) The person moving the application under Section 28-A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4 (1) to which the said award relates. (iv) The person moving the application did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18. (v) The application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the re-determination of amount of compensation is sought. (iv) The person moving the application did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18. (v) The application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the re-determination of amount of compensation is sought. (vi) Only one application can be moved under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation by an applicant.” 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the period of three months has to be counted from 12.04.2006 and the Limitation Act will not apply as the Collector is not a Court, as the Land Acquisition Act is also a complete Code in itself. Therefore, it cannot be liberally construed to grant any benefit to the private respondents. 10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents Mr. M.S. Pal on the other hand would argue that this beneficial legislation i.e. Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act has been inserted in the Land Acquisition Act by way of an amendment and it has to be liberally construed, therefore, three months’ period would run from 08.01.2007 and not from 12.04.2006. 11. This Court is of the view that indeed Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code in itself, and Limitation Act would not apply in the matter. Nevertheless, the Court cannot loose the sight of the fact that Section 28-A, was inserted by way of an amendment for the benefit of those who are illiterate, less aware of their legal rights and is hence a beneficial legislation. The purpose behind the said legislation by way of amendment was that normally the persons whose land is acquired are farmers and a large number of them are illiterate and most of them may not go for a reference, being unaware of the same which is their statutory right. Section 28-A protects them where actual price of land has not been determined and such persons should not be deprived of the proper value of the land which must be given to them. 12. Under the present circumstances and in the light of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, this Court is of the view that on 12.04.2006 there was actually no order regarding the land in question i.e. land of Khasra No.367 situated in Village Kichha. 12. Under the present circumstances and in the light of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, this Court is of the view that on 12.04.2006 there was actually no order regarding the land in question i.e. land of Khasra No.367 situated in Village Kichha. It became an order only on 08.01.2007, on which re-determination of compensation was made when the award was corrected by inserting the correct number of the Khasra of the land i.e. Khasra No. 367. The date of award for the purpose of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act would run from 08.01.2007. Consequently, the application which has been moved by the private respondents for re-determination of the compensation on 7th March, 2007 cannot be said to be beyond a period of three years. Moreover, the delay if any is not inordinate. 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, no interference is liable to be made in the order dated 05.05.2014, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, Nainital. 14. The writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.