JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. These writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the judgments dated 19.09.2012 and 21.12.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Authority), Bhilwara (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Land Acquisition Officer'), whereby the applications filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Land Acquisition Act') has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State Government for acquiring the land measuring 886.7 Bighas situated in villages Biliayakalan, Swaropganj and Guwardi of Tehsil and District Bhilwara for the purpose of establishment of Growth Centre, Hamirgarh for industrial development. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of acquisition proceedings. After issuance of notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and ultimately the Land Acquisition Officer passed the final award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 04.04.1998. The agriculture lands of the petitioners were acquired in the said acquisition proceedings. 4. Some of the land holders, whose lands were acquired, preferred references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Judge, Bhilwara and the said references were decided by judgment dated 23.10.2009, whereby the District Judge, Bhilwara enhanced the compensation for the land acquired. After passing of the Court award dated 23.10.2009, the petitioners moved applications before the Land Acquisition Officer under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. The said applications were dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide impugned judgments solely on the ground that the petitioners had not applied for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the final award passed by it and, therefore, their applications, preferred under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, are liable to be rejected. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgments the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions. 5. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgments the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act permits all the persons interested to move application for re-determination of amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court, notwithstanding the fact that they have not made any application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the impugned judgments without even looking into the provisions of section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and the matters are required to be remanded to the Land Acquisition Officer for deciding the applications, preferred by the applicants under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, afresh. 6. Despite service of notices, no reply is filed on behalf of the respondents, however, the counsel appearing for the respondent- RIICO has opposed all the writ petitions and contended that some of the applications, preferred by the persons interested under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, are after the limitation and, therefore, they are not liable to be entertained. In response to the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that some of the petitioners, who did not file applications under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act within prescribed limitation, have already filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay, however, the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered those applications and dismissed the applications filed under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments as well as the material available on record. 8. section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under:- "28A. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments as well as the material available on record. 8. section 28A of the Land Acquisition 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 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 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, required 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." 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not approached the District Judge, Bhilwara for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the final award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, however, some of the interested persons have filed their references before the District Judge, Bhilwara against the final award. The said references came to be decided by the District Judge, Bhilwara vide judgment dated 23.10.2009, wherein the compensation was enhanced. 10. The said references came to be decided by the District Judge, Bhilwara vide judgment dated 23.10.2009, wherein the compensation was enhanced. 10. It is to be noticed that the judgment dated 23.10.2009 passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara has been affirmed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.395/2010 (RIICO Ltd. v. Devi Lal & Anr.) and 62 other connected appeals vide judgment dated 20.07.2011 and against the said judgment, a special leave to appeal, preferred on behalf of the RIICO, has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.01.2012. 11. Be that as it may, after the decision passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara on 23.10.2009, the petitioners have preferred applications before the Land Acquisition Officer under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. 12. From the perusal of the impugned judgments, it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer has dismissed the applications preferred by the petitioners under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act solely on the ground that the petitioners did not file references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 13. It appears that the Land Acquisition Officer has not even taken into consideration the provision of section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides that if, on an application, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess to the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, any person interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of award of the Court, may apply for re-determination of the compensation payable to them on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. 14. 14. The language of the section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act is clear and unambiguous and in the opinion of the Court, the Land Acquisition Officer has grossly erred in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act while observing that as the petitioners have not filed references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, their applications under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act are liable to be rejected. 15. The judgments passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is a clear example of non-application of mind and lack of understanding the provisions of law. 16. In view of the above discussions, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned judgments dated 19.09.2012 and 21.12.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Authority), Bhilwara are set aside. 17. The matters are remanded to the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the applications, filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to them in accordance with the provisions of 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer shall also consider the applications filed by some of the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing the applications under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act sympathetically. 18. It is further directed that the Land Acquisition Officer shall decide the applications preferred on behalf of the petitioners under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.