M.R. Pathak,J.:-- Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Matter relates to non-consideration of petitioners’ applications dated 11.06.2015 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended (hereinafter referred to as L.A. Act), by the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Kolasib District, for re-determination of the amount of their acquisition compensation. 3. As agreed by the parties, this matter is taken up for consideration at the ‘Motion’ stage itself. 4. Brief facts of the case is that for the purpose of construction of railway track from Bairabi to Sairang under N.F. Railways in the State of Mizoram, the State Government in its Revenue Department acquired 37.85 Hectares of land at Village Khamrang and 52 Hectares at Village-Mualkhang, both under Kolasib District under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended; including petitioner No.1’s land measuring about 3,76,552 Sq. Feet under Pass No. G/LSC No. 7/2008 at village-Khamrang and petitioner No. 2’s land measuring 1,18,898 Sq. Feet under Pass No. G/LSC No. G.13/1993 at village-Mualkhang. For such acquisition, Notification under Section 4(1) and Declaration under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act was issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram, under Memo Nos.K.12011/25/2011-REV dated 02.08.2011 and 24.01.2012 respectively. The Collector of Kolasib on 28.01.2013 passed his Award being Award No. 1 of 2012 (Part-D Khamrang) and (Part-E Mualkhang), under Section 11 of the L.A. Act with regard to the acquisition of said land and paid compensation for an amount of Rs. 70,47,830/- to the petitioner No. 1 and an amount Rs. 35,86,670/- to the petitioner No. 2 for their acquired land, involved in this case, determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 15/- per sq. foot, which the petitioners received accordingly. 5. Some land owners of both the villages of Khamrang and Mualkhang, whose land were also acquired by the District Collector Kolasib under the said Notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, vide No. K.12011/25/2011-REV dated 02.08.2011 preferred petitions under Section 18 of the said Act before the Collector of Kolasib District to refer the matter for determination of the Court, claiming enhancement of market value of their acquired land @ Rs. 25 per sq. 25 per sq. foot and also for payment of interest @ 12 per annum under Section 23(1A) and Solatium @ 30% on the market value of the land under Section 23(2). Those petitions on being referred by the concerned Collector to the Court (Reference Court), i.e. the Court of learned Additional District Judge-III, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl., were registered as L. A. Case Nos.15 of 2013 with regard to land of person interested from Khamrang Village and L.A. Case No. 19 of 2013 with regard to land of person interested from Mualkhang Village, respectively. 6. The said Reference Court (the Court of Additional District Judge-III, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl) by its Judgment & Award dated 31.01.2014 passed in L.A. Case No. 15/2013 with regard to the applicants, whose land involved in Khamrang village, awarded Rs. 25/- per sq. foot as market value of the acquired land, enhancing from Rs. 15/- per sq. foot as determined by the Collector in his award dated 28.01.2013 and also granted interest @ of 12% p.a. under Section 23(1A) of the Act and Solatium @ 30% on the market value of the land under Section 23(2) of the said Act on the enhanced value of the land i.e. on Rs. 25 per sq. ft. for the said acquired land. 7. The said Reference Court by its Judgment & Award dated 06.03.2014, passed in L.A. Case No. 19/2013 with regard to the applicants, whose land involved in Mualkhang village, passed similar award as in the case of L.A. Case No. 15/2013, referred above. 8. Both the petitioners, individually on 11.06.2015 submitted their applications under Section 28A of the L.A. Act before the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the said awards of the Reference Court and to award them Rs. 25 per sq. foot as market value of their acquired land involved in the case instead of Rs. 15 per sq. foot as determined by him in his Awarded No. 1/2012 dated 28.01.2013 and said applications of the petitioners were received by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib vide Receipt Nos.4329 & 4328 dated 16.06.2015, respectively. 9. 25 per sq. foot as market value of their acquired land involved in the case instead of Rs. 15 per sq. foot as determined by him in his Awarded No. 1/2012 dated 28.01.2013 and said applications of the petitioners were received by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib vide Receipt Nos.4329 & 4328 dated 16.06.2015, respectively. 9. The District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Kolasib District, after hearing the petitioners as well as the N.F. Railways; by his order under Memo Nos.15012/11/2015/Sec 28(A)-DC(K) dated 09.09.2015 refused to re-determine the amount compensation of petitioners’ acquired land involved in the case, as claimed by them, holding that –he being the District Collector, is not empowered to re-determine the award enhancing the land value, which was fixed by the Government. 10. Being aggrieved with the said decision of the respondent No. 3, i.e. the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, dated 09.09.2015, the petitioners have filed this petition to set aside his said order dated 09.09.2015 and to direct him to re-determine the amount of compensation for their acquired land, involved in the case, in terms of the judgment & awards dated 31.01.2014 and 06.03.2014 respectively, passed by the Reference Court in L.A. Case Nos.15 and 19 of 2013 referred above. 11. The Petitioners submitted that the applicants of those cases, where the learned Reference Court has enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 25/- per square foot, from Rs. 15/- per square foot are either Periodic Patta holders or Village Council Pass holders, whereas the petitioners were land settlement certificate holders of their acquired land and therefore, they have better right and claim than those applicants and as such they should also be given the market value of their acquired land @ Rs. 25/- per sq. foot as determined by the Court as well as interest @ 12% p.a. as per Section 23(1A) and Solatium @ 30% as per Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act on the enhanced value of the land and also the statutory interest on the enhanced value of compensation as provided under Section 28 of the Act. The petitioners also submitted that they are entitled for the said compensation and denial of the same would amount to violation of their legal right. 12. The petitioners also submitted that they are entitled for the said compensation and denial of the same would amount to violation of their legal right. 12. The petitioners in this petition have admitted that though they received the land acquisition compensation as awarded by the Collector of Kolasib on 28.01.2013, but being aggrieved with the said Award of the Collector, they on 18.03.2013 submitted their applications under Section 18 of the L.A. Act before him to refer their matter for determination by the Court along with the payment of interest @ 12% p.a. under Section 23(1A) and Solatium @ 30% on the market value of the land under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act and also for payment of compensation in respect of crops that were damaged, at the prevailing market rate i.e. double the amount awarded. Said applications on being referred by the Collector concerned, it is submitted that their said applications were registered as L.A. Case No. 16 & 17 of 2013, respectively, before the Court (Reference Court), i.e. the Court of Additional District Judge-III, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl. 13. From the statements made by the petitioners and the annexures appended to the petition (Annexure-III & IV), it is observed that the Court (Reference Court), i.e. the Court of Additional District Judge-III, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, after hearing the parties, by its judgment & award dated 30.08.2013 passed in said L.A. Case Nos.16 & 17 of 2013, respectively, awarded interest @ 12% p.a. under Section 23(1A) and Solatium @ 30% on the market value on their acquired land. 14. From the said judgment & award dated 30.08.2013 passed in said L.A. Case Nos.16 & 17 of 2013, it is seen that during the course of hearing of said L.A. Case Nos.16 & 17 of 2013, the applicants therein, i.e. the present petitioners limited their claim only to the payment of interest @ 12% p.a. under Section 23(1A) and Solatium @ 30% on the market value of the acquired land under Section 23 (2) of the L.A. Act, respectively. 15. 15. The petitioners have also placed reliance of an order of the Division Bench this Court dated 08.102015 passed in Writ Appeal No. 200/2015 (C. Lalremtlunga & 109 others v. State of Mizoram & others) arising out of Order dated 26.06.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 80/2015, wherein the concerned Collector was asked to pay the enhanced compensation fixed by the Reference Court as required under Section 28A of the L.A. Act. 16. Sections 18 to 28A under Part III of the L.A. Act 1894 as amended relates to ‘Reference to Court and Procedure thereon’ and Section 28A of the said Act reads as follows: “Section 28A. 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 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 subsection (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 reference under Section 18.” (Inserted by Act No. 68 of 1984 Section 19 with effect from 24-09-1984). 17. 17. From the reading of sub-section (1) of Section 28A of the L.A. Act, it is observed that prior to re-determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector on the basis of the award of the Court; below give conditions are to be fulfilled and they are: (i) There should be an Award by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11 of the L.A. Act for acquisition of land, determining acquisition compensation on the basis a Notification for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the said Act. (ii) Person interested, whose land has been acquired, who did not accept the Award of the Collector, submitted an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act before the said Collector to refer the matter to the Court for determination. (iii) On such application of the applicant and the matter on being referred, the Court (Reference Court) passed an Award under Section 26 of the L.A. Act, allowing the applicant an amount of compensation which is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. In this given situation, (iv) other person interested, whose land have also been acquired on the basis of the same Notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act to which the Award of the Reference Court relates, (v) and are also aggrieved by the Award of the Collector, (vi) but did not made any application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, before the Collector concerned to refer the matter for determination of the Court, then only, (vii) such person interested, within 3 (three) months from the date of said Award of the Reference Court, (vii) can make a written application before the concerned Collector, requiring the said Collector to re-determine the amount of compensation payable to them, (viii) on the basis of the amount of compensation Awarded by the Reference Court and (ix) the period of three months for filing said application under Section 28A by such person interested before the Collector concerned is to be counted from the date on which the Reference Court pronounced the said Award under Section 26 of the Act on the basis of which redetermination of the amount of compensation is sought for; but while counting/calculating the said period of three months, the time taken for obtaining a copy of the said Award of the Reference Court should not be included. 18. 18. From the reading of sub-section (2) of Section 28A of the L.A. Act, it is observed that it is only when the conditions mentioned in Section 28A(1) are fulfilled and complied with, then only the concerned Collector can invoke the provisions of Section 28A(2) and proceed for re-determination of amount of compensation payable to the applicants, that too, only after giving notice to the persons interested, after hearing them and then by conducting an inquiry. 19. From sub-section (3) of Section 28A of the L.A. Act, it is seen that if any person do not accept the Award given by the Collector, under sub-section (2) of Section 28A of the L.A. Act (re-determining the amount of compensation by the Collector on the basis of the Award of the Reference Court), such aggrieved person again, by a written application before the said Collector, ask to refer the matter for determination of the Court and in that case the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 of the L.A. Act, so far as may be, shall apply to such reference as applicable to a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act . 20. In the case of Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545 , Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed that – “A person who fails to make an application for reference within the time prescribed (under Section of 18 of the L.A. Act) is not without remedy and it is open to him to make an application under Section 28A of the Act, on the basis of an award of the court in respect of the other lands covered by the same acquisition notification, if there is an increase.” 21. In a similar case as that of the case in hand, where the claimant earlier preferred reference petition under Section 18 of the L.A. Act; the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D. Krishna Veni v. State of Orissa, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 734 , have held that – “Section 28A would apply to the claimants who received the compensation without protest and faced with statutory bar of reference and would not apply to those who had already availed the remedy of reference (under Section 18 of the L.A. Act) and got no benefit or lesser benefit thereunder. Equally the bar of res judicata clearly would apply to the appellants. Equally the bar of res judicata clearly would apply to the appellants. The application under Section 28A is, therefore, not maintainable.” 22. In the case of Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 736 , a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that – “The person moving the application under Section 28A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the said award relates and the person moving the application did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18.” 23. In the case of Hukam Chand v. State of Haryana, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 164 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that – “The remedy under Section 28A(1) is available only when the compensation was enhanced under Section 26, award and judgment in Part III of the Act (L.A. Act) and the same is not available when it was enhanced under Section 54 of the Act. This Court in Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1991) 1 SCC 174 ] had held that the claimants who availed of the remedy under Section 18 are not entitled to additional amount under Section 28A when the High Court enhanced the compensation. Similar view was also expressed in Babua Ram v. State of U.P. [ (1995) 2 SCC 689 ]. The appellants are, therefore, not entitled to make the applications under Section 28A for further enhancement. The Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court have rightly refused to grant the relief of enhanced compensation on a par with the other claimants. The further contention that the appellants are invidiously discriminated to (sic by) the payment of same compensation on a par with others violating the equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution is no longer res integra.” 24. In the case of Bhagti v. State of Haryana, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 473 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that – “Only those claimants who had failed to apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Act are conferred with the right to apply for redetermination under Section 28A(1). In the case of Bhagti v. State of Haryana, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 473 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that – “Only those claimants who had failed to apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Act are conferred with the right to apply for redetermination under Section 28A(1). But all those who had not only sought a reference under Section 18 but had also filed an appeal in the High Court against the award made by the Reference Court are not entitled to avail of the remedy under Section 28A. Equally, the right and remedy of redetermination would be available only when the Reference Court under Section 18 has enhanced the compensation in an award and decree under Section 26. Within three months from the date of the Reference Court excluding the time taken under the proviso, the applicant whose land was acquired under the same notification but who failed to avail of the remedy under Section 18, would be entitled to avail of the right and remedy under Section 28A.” 25. With regard to ‘had not made an application to the Collector under section 18’ of Section 28A(1) of the L.A. Act, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 273 , have held that – “The said expression would mean that if the landowner has made an application for reference under Section 18 and that reference is entertained and answered. In other words, it may not be permissible for a landowner to make a reference and get it answered and then subsequently make another application when some other person gets the reference answered and obtains a higher amount. The expression ‘did not make an application’, as observed by this Court, would mean did not make an effective application which had been entertained by making the reference and the reference was answered. When an application under Section 18 is not entertained on the ground of limitation, the same not fructifying into any reference, then that would not tantamount to an effective application and consequently the rights of such applicant emanating from some other reference being answered to move an application under Section 28A cannot be denied. When an application under Section 18 is not entertained on the ground of limitation, the same not fructifying into any reference, then that would not tantamount to an effective application and consequently the rights of such applicant emanating from some other reference being answered to move an application under Section 28A cannot be denied. We, accordingly hold that when an application of a landowner under Section 18 (of the L.A. Act) is dismissed on the ground of delay, then the said landowner is entitled to make an application under Section 28A, if other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled. If a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28A and would be entitled to make an application when some other landowner’s application for reference is answered by the reference court. It is apparent on the plain language of the provisions of Section 28A of the Act. Otherwise, it would amount to adding one more condition, not contemplated or stipulated by the legislature itself to deny the benefit of substantial right conferred upon the owner.” 26. In the case of Des Raj v. Union of India, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 753 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have also held that – “Benefit of Section 28A is available only to the parties who had not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. This provision is not available to persons who seek reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation...” 27. This provision is not available to persons who seek reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation...” 27. With regard to entitlement to re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the L.A. Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parbhati v. Union of India, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 481, have held that - “Once a landowner has sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and his claim for enhanced compensation has been decided by the Reference Court on merits and an award passed, he cannot thereafter seek re-determination of compensation under Section 28A, taking advantage of advance compensation awarded by Reference Court in respect of reference made by other owners, whose land were also acquired under the same Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.” 28. Again in the case of Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that – “The benefit of redetermination of amount of compensation under Section 28A can be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards that has been made by the Court after the coming into force of Section 28A provided the applicant seeking such benefit makes the application under Section 28A within the prescribed period of three months from the making of the award on the basis of which redetermination is sought.” 29. In the case of Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese v. Land Acquisition Collector, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 746 , a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have laid down that – “For the benefit under Section 28A of the L.A. Act, the period of limitation would start to run from the date of the Award of the Reference Court, on the basis whereof the redetermination is sought and not the judgment rendered by an appellate court.” 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tota Ram v. State of U.P., (1997) 6 SCC 280 , have held that – “3. A reading thereof (Section 28A of the L.A. Act) clearly indicates that a person whose land is acquired under a common notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act but who failed to avail of the remedy of reference under Section 18, is eligible to make a written application within three months from the date of the award of the Court enhancing the compensation. It has been interpreted by this Court that the “court” means Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction to whom reference under Section 18 would lie. Admittedly, the award of the reference court having been made on 18-5-1990, the limitation began to run from that date. The proviso to Section 28-A gives a right to the persons to obtain the certified copy of the award and decree and the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the award and the decree shall be excluded in computing the period of three months. In view of the express language, the question of knowledge does not arise and, therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the limitation of three months begins to start from the date of the knowledge is clearly unsustainable and cannot be accepted.” 31. In the case of State of A.P. v. Marri Venkaiah, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 280 with regard to Section 28A of the L.A. Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have laid down that :- “7. Plain language of the aforesaid section would only mean that the period of limitation is three months from the date of the award of the court. It is also provided that in computing the period of three months, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the award is to be excluded. Therefore, the aforesaid provision crystallizes that application under Section 28A is to be filed within three months from the date of the award by the court by only excluding the time requisite for obtaining the copy. Hence, it is difficult to infer further exclusion of time on the ground of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant. *** *** *** 10. In our view, with regard to the first contention that Section 28A is a beneficial provision, there cannot be any dispute. However, the advantage of the benefit which is conferred is required to be taken within the stipulated time. A landowner may be poor or illiterate and because of that he might not have filed reference application but that would not mean that he could be negligent in not finding out whether other landowners have filed such applications. Whosoever wants to take advantage of the beneficial legislation has to be vigilant and has to take appropriate action within the prescribed time. Whosoever wants to take advantage of the beneficial legislation has to be vigilant and has to take appropriate action within the prescribed time. He must at least be vigilant in making efforts to find out whether the other landowner has filed any reference application and if so, what is the result. If that is not done then the law cannot help him. Admittedly, in the present case, award enhancing the compensation was pronounced by the civil court by order dated 29-11-1984 and applications were filed on 27-11-1989 i.e. after a lapse of 5 years. In such case, as the applicant was having an opportunity of knowing the award and/or he was required to make efforts of knowing about such proceedings, he must be presumed to have had knowledge of the award. If the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, it will create total vagueness and uncertainty as the landowners can claim that they have come to know of the award after a long lapse of time and, therefore, the application even though beyond time may be entertained. If such applications are entertained, there may not be any finality to the award and payment of compensation. Result may be that such proceedings may adversely affect where land is acquired by the Government for a project which is to be carried out by local bodies.” 32. In the case of Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 483, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have also held that – “The limitation of three months for making an application for redetermination of the compensation as envisaged under Section 28-A of the Act has to be computed from the date of the award of the Reference Court on the basis of which redetermination is sought, and not the order of the appellate court dealing with the appeal against the award of the Reference Court.” 33. While deciding a case with regard to limitation of filing an application under Section 28A of the L.A. Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 , upholding the order of Land Acquisition officer of such application rejection the same on the ground that it was filed with a delay of 4 days have held that – “13. This Court in Union of India v. Mangatu Ram [ (1997) 6 SCC 59 ] and Tota Ram v. State of U.P. [ (1997) 6 SCC 280 ] dealt with the issue involved herein and held that as the Land Acquisition Collector is not a court and acts as a quasi-judicial authority while making the award, the provisions of the 1963 Act would not apply and, therefore, the application under Section 28-A of the Act, has to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 28-A of the Act. The said provisions require that an application for redetermination is to be filed within 3 months from the date of the award of the court. The proviso further provides that the period of limitation is to be calculated excluding the date on which the award is made and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the award. 16. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” 34. It is a settled position that Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended is a complete code itself, providing substantive right to an interested person to claim compensation etc. as prescribed in the Act itself. The said Act being a complete code, lays down detailed procedure for acquisition of land, payment of compensation including Solatium, Interest and additional market value. 35. It is a settled position that Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended is a complete code itself, providing substantive right to an interested person to claim compensation etc. as prescribed in the Act itself. The said Act being a complete code, lays down detailed procedure for acquisition of land, payment of compensation including Solatium, Interest and additional market value. 35. In the present case the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Kolasib District by the impugned order dated 09.09.2015 refused to enhance the market value of petitioners’ land involved in the case as claimed by them under Section 28A of the L.A. Act, stating that he being the District Collector, is not empowered to re-determine the award, as the land value was fixed by the Government. 36. The Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act is only an offer made by the Collector on behalf of the State and the State is bound by the offer and the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) is the agent of the beneficiary and the acts of the agent binds the principal beneficiary. Once such offer of the Collector/LAO is accepted and the claimant receives the compensation under Section 31 of the Act, the proceeding gets concluded and no further steps need be taken under the Act by the Collector/LAO and thereafter, normally, the Collector/LAO cannot re-open his Award, except as provided by the said Act. 37. There is no provision in the L.A. Act apart from Section 28A for reopening of an award of by the Collector/LAO that was passed by him, which has become final and conclusive and it is only Section 28A of the Act, which provides for the re-determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector/LAO, provided the conditions laid down in the said Section are fulfilled. 38. 38. The law is well settled that if against an award of the Collector/LAO under Section 11 of the Act, the Reference Court under Section 26 of the Act allows the applicant awarding amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector/LAO under Section 11 of the Act; in such circumstances, any person interested in the land (excluding the beneficiary), covered by the same Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, who has not sought reference or whose reference has not been entertained and rejected on the ground of delay, may make an application under Section 28A(1) of the Act, within a period three months from the date of the said Award of the Reference Court, upon which the person interested relies on, excluding the time taken for a copy of the said Award of the Reference Court, may seek the same relief which has been granted to other landowners by the Reference Court. In such case, if the Collector finds that the conditions for application under the said provision of Section 28A(1) of the Act are fulfilled, then only he can re-open his previous award and re-determine the amount of compensation on the basis of the Award of the Reference Court by giving same relief to the applicant, which he is entitled to, as has been granted to other persons seeking reference and getting enhanced compensation. 39. The Hon’ble Apex Court have also settled the law that Collector/Land Acquisition Officer under the L.A. Act is not a Court, but a quasi-judicial body only and the principle of limitation starting from the date of knowledge of the award is applicable only to Section 18 of the L.A. Act and not to Section 28A of the said Act and there is no precedents, which directly applied to the said principle to Section 28A of the Act and that the limitation of three months for moving the application under Section 28A begins to run only from the date of the award of the Reference Court on the basis of which re-determination of compensation is sought for, excluding the time that was required for obtaining a copy of the said award of the Reference Court. 40. 40. Admittedly, the petitioners in this case did seek for reference under Section 18 of the Act and also obtained higher compensation, which was awarded by the Reference Court by Judgment & Award dated 30.08.2013 passed in L.A. Case Nos.16 & 17 of 2013 respectively. 41. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioners sought for re-determination of the amount of compensation under Section 28A of the Act by filing applications before the Collector of Kolasib on 11.06.2015 and were received by the concerned office on 16.06.2015, on the basis of the Reference Court’s award dated 31.01.2014 and 06.03.2014 passed in L.A. Case Nos.15 & 19 of 2013 respectively, which are filed by the petitioners long after the expiry of three months of those two awards of the Reference Court, as prescribed under Section 28A of the L.A. Act. 42. After hearing the parties and considering in the entire aspect of the matter, the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, Kolasib under Memo Nos.15012/11/2015/Sec.28(A)-DC(K) and No. 15012/11/2015/Sec.28(A)-DC(K)/11, both dated 09.09.2015 are hereby set aside and quashed and the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, Kolasib is hereby directed to consider the applications of the petitioners under Section 28A of the L.A. Act dated 11.06.2015, received by his office on 16.06.2015, afresh, considering the maintainability of said applications of the petitioners first an then to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, considering the terms of the aforementioned settled proposition of law. 43. Petitioners shall submit certified copy of this order before the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, Kolasib on or before 15th December 2015. 44. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed, with the observation and directions made herein above. -