JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The petitioner herein has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 21-11-2009 and 10-2-2011 passed by respondent No. 1 and to direct respondent No. 1 to decide the application of the petitioner under Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and to pay suitable compensation thereby. The case of the petitioner who is the owner and occupier of the land bearing Block No. 54/2 admeasuring 3840 sq.mts. situated at village Chandranagar, Savli, Vadodara, is that the reference Court passed an award on 13-5-2008 declaring amount of compensation at Rs. 12-80 per sq.mtr. as additional compensation for the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since, the petitioner had not made application under Sec. 18 of the Act, she made an application under Sec. 28A of the Act through her Advocate Deval Nanubhai Bhatt on 25-8-2008. When the hearing took place on 17-11-2008, Power of Attorney was produced by said Deval Bhatt. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 accepted the request of the petitioner for allowing application under Sec. 28A of the Act and passed order to pay amount of compensation to the petitioner with other consequential benefits. 1.1. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 forwarded letter dated 29-9-2009 through respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 for sanctioning the draft award passed by respondent No. 1. However, respondent No. 2 found certain irregularities in the application and remanded the application to respondent No. 1 for further scrutiny. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 21-11-2009 rejected the application of the petition under Sec. 28A of the Act. 1.2. The petitioner thereafter, through her Advocate, addressed a letter to reconsider her case but respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 10-2-2011 conveyed that since the application of the petitioner under Sec. 28A was not in accordance with law and since the same had already been rejected there was no question of reconsidering the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 2. Mr. K.M. Sheth, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner had given oral instructions to her Advocate to make an application under Sec. 28A of the Act as the petitioner was a Senior Citizen and at the relevant time resided abroad, and therefore, it was not possible for her to come and file an application personally. Mr. K.M. Sheth, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner had given oral instructions to her Advocate to make an application under Sec. 28A of the Act as the petitioner was a Senior Citizen and at the relevant time resided abroad, and therefore, it was not possible for her to come and file an application personally. He submitted that at the time of hearing i.e. on 17-11-2009, the Power of Attorney was produced along with the affidavit of the petitioner which stated that she had given oral instructions and power to her Advocate to file application under Sec.28A of the Act. 2.1. Mr. Sheth submitted that respondent No. 2 has acted contrary to law inasmuch as respondent No. 2 had to only function as a forwarding authority when the Government is empowered to approve the award passed by respondent No. 1. He submitted that in spite of that, though respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction other than forwarding the said proposal for approval to respondent No. 1, he himself became the appellate authority and decided that the issue for draft award passed by respondent No. 1 is not required to be approved. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sheth has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, reported in AIR 1971 SC 76. 3. Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent submitted that there was no document produced along with the application dated 25-6-2011 to substantiate that the petitioner has legally authorized Shri Deval Bhatt to make an application under Sec. 28A of the Act. He submitted that the concept of oral authorization is not known to law and that subsequent to the closing of the application of the petitioner under Sec. 28A of the Act, Power of Attorney was produced. He submitted that initial Power of Attorney and the subsequent Power of Attorney which have been produced do not inspire confidence regarding the acceptability and applicability of the same in terms of the provisions of Sec. 18 of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. 4. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for both the sides. In order to appreciate the controversy in question, we think it fit to go through Sec. 28A of the Act at the outset. Section 28A of the Act reads as under: "28A. 4. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for both the sides. In order to appreciate the controversy in question, we think it fit to go through Sec. 28A of the Act at the outset. Section 28A of the Act reads as under: "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 to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under Sec. 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Sec. 4, sub-sec. (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 Sec. 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-sec, 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-sec. (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-sec. (2) may, by written application to the Collector, required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Secs. 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Sec. 18." 4.1. It is an admitted position that the award was passed on 13-5-2008. The application was required to be received on or before 13-8-2008. The application was submitted by the petitioner on 25-6-2008 which means that the same was within the limitation period. However, the same was without authority of law. The vakalatnama produced by the petitioner before the Special Land Acquisition Officer bears the signature of Shri Deval Nanubhai Bhatt duly signed on 17-6-2008. The application was submitted by the petitioner on 25-6-2008 which means that the same was within the limitation period. However, the same was without authority of law. The vakalatnama produced by the petitioner before the Special Land Acquisition Officer bears the signature of Shri Deval Nanubhai Bhatt duly signed on 17-6-2008. This signature is on behalf of Shardaben Patel - petitioner and on what basis this document was issued and presented in absence of any Power of Attorney is not specified along with the application received while presenting this vakalatnama. If the Power of Attorney is perused, it bears the date of 8-11-2008. Thus, if the Power of Attorney is drawn on 8-11-2008, one could not have produced vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner on or before 8-11-2008. Even if it is considered that Power of Attorney empowers Shri Bhatt to be Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, there is nothing in the Power of Attorney to suggest that the same had a retrospective effect. Unless mere is a specific conferment of power validating the action taken prior to drawing of Power of Attorney, the action cannot be ratified and accepted in the eye of law to be a valid one. There is no reference about the telephonic talk or oral instructions as well. In other words, the said document is without any authority. 4.2. So far as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jugraj Singh, AIR 1972 SC 761 is concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in the said case, there were two powers of attorney to be considered and in the second Power of Attorney it was stated in express terms that the first Power of Attorney was defective and was being ratified. However, in the present case, no such mention has been made in the Power of Attorney. As stated earlier, there is no mention of the conferment of power validating the action taken prior to drawing of Power of Attorney or the telephonic talk between the Advocate and the petitioner or oral instructions issued by the petitioner. 4.3. Even if Sec. 28A of the Act is perused, it is borne out that the application filed on behalf of the petitioner, can in no way be termed as an application by an interested person. 4.3. Even if Sec. 28A of the Act is perused, it is borne out that the application filed on behalf of the petitioner, can in no way be termed as an application by an interested person. The respondent authority was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Under such circumstances we are not inclined to exercise jurisdictional powers as doing so will amount to ratification of the illegal action by the petitioner. Moreover, under the provisions of the Act, the powers to act and function for an on behalf of the Collector are vested to the Officer not below the rank of Mamlatdar, and therefore, the action by the respondent authority cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find merit in the present petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any stands vacated. No costs.