ORDER : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petitioners claim to be covered by the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 16th July, 1980 which proposed to acquire certain tracks of their Raiyati land situate at village Pachanda under Mandu Circle, District Hazaribagh. The Land Acquisition Cases No. in respect of these petitioners are 03/1979-80 and 05/1979-80. The land losers got the compensation in terms of the award prepared by the Collector under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 14th April, 1982. These petitioners accepted the compensation under protest but did not make reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. However, some other aggrieved awardees sought a reference by making application before the Collector. Land Reference Case No. 28/1985 to 31/1985 and 34/1985 to 54/1985 were instituted before the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh. The Reference Court by a common judgment dated 22nd August, 1987 passed and prepared award in the aforesaid L.A. Cases and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1200/- per decimal. These petitioners are said to have made an application in terms of Section 28A of the L.A. Act, 1894 within a period of three months seeking a pre-determination and enhancement of compensation in terms of the said provisions. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to letter no.339 dated 12th November, 1990 (Annexure-2) where under the Director, Land Acquisition, Bihar Patna was requested to provide allotment of Rs. 1,17,10,344.95 paise for payment of the enhanced compensation in the light of the judgment rendered by the Land Acquisition Court. He points out from para-2 of the said letter that it acknowledges making of application by the concerned applicants within a period of three months in terms of Section 28A on which the applicants were also heard. He further submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh prepared valuation Khatiyan fixing compensation on 12th January, 1990. This amount remained unpaid apparently for the reason that the State had appealed against the judgment of the Reference Court before Patna High Court in F.A. No.108-132/1998 (R). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that the Hon'ble High Court on 17th December, 2003 has finally disposed of the said appeals by a common judgment at Annexure-7, where under the order and award of learned Reference Court has been affirmed and the appeals have been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that the Hon'ble High Court on 17th December, 2003 has finally disposed of the said appeals by a common judgment at Annexure-7, where under the order and award of learned Reference Court has been affirmed and the appeals have been rejected. Still the enhanced compensation has not been paid to the petitioners who are also similarly situated like the awardees who are beneficiaries of the enhanced compensation and covered by the same notification. 5. Respondents in their counter affidavit have also referred to the land acquisition cases in which an award was passed enhancing compensation and also the dismissal of F.A. No.108-132/1998 (R). Thereafter, averments in the counter affidavit only show the correspondence being undertaken. They also say that the petitioners have not submitted any evidence/proof of succession/inheritance regarding their claims, in absence of which respondents are unable to prepare any award. The matter requires verification as to whether the land losers/ancestors of the petitioners have been paid compensation or not from CCL. 6. Having considered the submissions of the parties and taken note of the relevant facts pleaded, it is now clear that after the dismissal of F.A. No.108-132/1998 (R) by this Court by judgment at Annexure-7 dated 17th December, 2003, the respondents i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh are required to individually ascertain the claim of the present petitioners in relation to enhancement of compensation upon due verification that the petitioners are covered by the same notifications and that individual petitioners had made such application within the time prescribed under Section 28A of the Act of 1894. The respondents should take into account the letter dated 12th November, 1990 (Annexure-2) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on the subject also and if the claim of the petitioners are made within time and that they are found to be covered by the same notification, the exercise of pre-determination of the awarded amount be made in accordance with law and the amount of enhanced compensation be paid to individual persons who are entitled for the same. 7. Since the matter is old, let such exercise be completed within a reasonable time, preferably within 16 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.