JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, Addl. Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the Order dated 6.9.2016 issued by the respondent No. 3 (District Collector), rejecting the petitioners' application under Section 28A of the L.A Act, 1894, on the ground that the District Collector does not have the jurisdiction to re-determine the land value. 3. The petitioners' case in brief is that the petitioner's lands, which is located within the Hortoki Village Council area was acquired for construction of a new Railway Line from Bairabi to Sairang. Draft Award No. 1/2012 (Part-C, Hortoki) dated 13.9.2012 was issued by the District Collector, Kolasib, wherein compensation to be paid to the petitioner for the value of damaged crops was made at Serial No. 258 of the Award. No compensation was paid for the value of the land. 4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had initially filed WP(C) No. 18/2016 praying that the petitioner should be given interest and solatium under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. WA No. 18/2016 was disposed of vide Order dated 26.2.2016, wherein the writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum under the L.A Act, 1894 for redressal of his grievance with regard to non-payment of solatium and interest under Section 23 of the L.A Act. The petitioner thereafter approached the Reference Court by filing CMA No. 90/2016 arising out of L.A Case No. 4/2013 (disposed). The Reference Court thereafter disposed of CMA No. 90/2016 directing the District Collector, Kolasib to release the solatium and interest of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner thereafter received solatium and interest. 5. The petitioner's counsel submits that persons who are similarly situated as the petitioner and who were also given compensation for damaged crops only in Draft Award No. 1/2012 (Part-C, Hortoki) had filed a reference petition, i.e. L.A Case No. 30/2014, claiming compensation for their lands, as the Award did not contain the market value of their lands. The petitioner was not a party in the reference case, i.e. L.A Case No. 30/2014. 6. The petitioner was not a party in the reference case, i.e. L.A Case No. 30/2014. 6. The Reference Court disposed of L.A Case No. 30/2014 vide Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 directing the North East Frontier Railway to pay compensation for the market value of the lands of the land holders. 7. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner came to know of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014 only on 26.2.2016, i.e., one year later. 8. The petitioner thereafter applied for a certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014 on 26.2.2016 and the same was furnished to the petitioner on 10.3.2016. 9. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application dated 25.4.2016 under Section 28A to the Deputy Commissioner, claiming compensation for the market value of his land, on the basis of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014. 10. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's application for payment of compensation for land value under Section 28A of the L.A Act, 1894 was rejected vide Order dated 6.9.2016 by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the respondent No. 3 did not have the jurisdiction to re-determine the land value. 11. The petitioner's counsel submits that this Court in a similar case, i.e. WP(C) No. 165/2015 and WP(C) No. 82/2016 has directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the applications of the petitioners under Section 28A of the L.A Act, 1894. 12. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, Addl. Advocate General submits that as the petitioner has submitted an application under Section 28A after more than one year from the date of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in LA Case No. 30/2014, the petitioner's application is not maintainable and accordingly, the present writ petition should be dismissed. 13. The learned Addl. Advocate General also submits that the petitioner having earlier taken part in a reference petition, i.e. Reference Case No. 4/2013, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take support of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014. 14. 13. The learned Addl. Advocate General also submits that the petitioner having earlier taken part in a reference petition, i.e. Reference Case No. 4/2013, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take support of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014. 14. Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states as follows:- "28-A. Redetermination 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 redetermined 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.]" 15. A perusal of the provision of Section 28A (1) shows that an application under Section 28A should be made within 3 (three) months from the date of the Award of the Court. A perusal of the provision of Section 28A (1) shows that an application under Section 28A should be made within 3 (three) months from the date of the Award of the Court. The proviso to Section 28A (1) states that in computing the period of 3 (three) months within which an application is to be made under Section 28A, the day on which the Award was pronounced and the time required for obtaining a copy of the Award shall be excluded. 16. In a similar case as 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 , has 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. The application under Section 28A is, therefore, not maintainable". 17. 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, has 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." 18. In the present case, the Reference Court has passed its Judgment and Award in LA Case No. 30/2014 on 5.2.2015. The petitioner submitted an application for a copy of a certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in LA Case No. 30/2014 only after one year i.e. on 26.2.2016. A certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 was furnished to the petitioner on 10.3.2016. The petitioner submitted an application for a copy of a certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in LA Case No. 30/2014 only after one year i.e. on 26.2.2016. A certified copy of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 was furnished to the petitioner on 10.3.2016. The above facts clearly goes to show that even after excluding the date on which the Judgment and Award was pronounced and the time required for obtaining a copy of the Judgment and Award, the application under Section 28A of the LA Act, 1894 is beyond the limitation period. There is no provision in the LA Act for condoning an application under Section 28A. Also condoning the late submission of an application under Section 28A on the ground that the concerned person came to know of the Judgment and Award made by a Reference Court at a very late date cannot help the petitioner, inasmuch as, the same would be in violation of the provision of the Act. Besides the above, a pandoras box could be opened, if this Court condoned the late application under Section 28A, which in any event, is not allowed by Section 28A of the LA Act. For example, a person whose name is reflected in the Award for compensation, claims after 20 years, that he had become aware of enhancement of the compensation amount in a Reference Court, in which he had not participated. It would not be reasonable for the Court to allow the land owner to claim ignorance of a Judgment of Award passed in his Reference Court, so as to enable him to make a late claim at a late date. The only ground given in Section 28A which can be excluded for computing the limitation period is the date of pronouncement of the Award and the time required for obtaining a copy of the Award. 19. 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 has held 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." 20. In the case of Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 483, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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." 21. 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 , has 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. 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." 22. In the present case, though the District Collector had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 28A on wrong reasoning and understanding of the law, this Court finds that the petitioner's application under Section 28A of the LA Act is beyond the limitation period provided for and as held by the Apex Court in Popat Bahiru Govardhane (supra). 23. In the present case, a perusal of the documents on record shows that the petitioner had earlier filed Reference Case No. 4/2013, as his application for solatium and interest was allowed in CMA No. 90/2016 arising out of L.A Case No. 4/2013 (disposed), vide order dated 22.3.2016 by the Reference Court. The petitioner is, however, trying to get compensation on the basis of the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014 and not on the decision made by the Reference Court in his reference petition i.e. L.A Case No. 4/2013. The same however, cannot be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in D. Krishna Veni (supra) and Parbhati (supra). 24. Though this Court in WP(C) 165/2015 and WP(C) 82/2016 had directed the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Kolasib to dispose of the application under Section 28A of the L.A Act, 1894 submitted by the petitioners in the above two cases, this Court is not inclined to pass a similar direction, in view of the fact that the Apex Court has clearly laid down the law regarding the person who can utilize the award passed by the Reference Court and the limitation period within which the said application under Section 28A should be filed. In the present case, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 28A after a lapse of more than one year after the Judgment and Award dated 5.2.2015 was passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014. 25. The Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 74/2016, "Peoples Right to Information and Development Implementation Society of Mizoram (PRISM) v. State of Mizoram and Another" has held that the Village Council has the power to allot sites within its jurisdiction only for residential and other non-agriculture purposes. The question of whether the petitioners' Village Council pass were issued for residential or agriculture purposes need not be gone into, as the petitioners' application under Section 28A is hit by limitation and as he cannot take advantage of the Judgment and Award passed in L.A Case No. 30/2014, as he had already made a challenge to the Draft Award No. 1/2012 vide L.A Case No. 4/2013. 26. In view of the reasons stated above, the petitioner's application under Section 28A of the LA Act, 1894 being not maintainable, the present writ petition is dismissed.