JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —Since, common questions of facts, and, law are involved in all the aforestated petitions, hence, they are being disposed, of, by a common judgment. 2. The land of the petitioners, along with, the lands, of, other landowners concerned, was, acquired for construction, of, a helipad, at Rohru. The apposite notification, whereunder, the lands of the landowners concerned, was, brought under acquisition, was, issued on 2.9.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector concerned, rendered his award, on, 15.12.1995, and, thereunder, hence, assessed compensation vis-a-vis all the landowners concerned. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, was, assailed by the aggrieved, by theirs preferring petitions, under, Section 18, of the Land Acquisition Act, before, the Collector concerned, petitions whereof, were, thereafter hence transmitted, to the learned Reference Court, for a pronouncement, of, an adjudication thereon. The learned Reference Court, under, a rendition made on 18.1.1999, enhanced compensation amount vis-a-vis those landowners, who, had constituted the apposite reference petitions. Subsequently, the petitioners herein, whose lands, alongwith the aforesaid, were, also under a common notification, hence, acquired for construction, of a helipad at Roharu, (i) AND, who did not alike other land owners, hence contest the award pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector, by theirs casting petitions under Section 18, of, the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , before, the Collector concerned, (ii) for enabling the latter, to forward them, to the learned Reference Court concerned, rather hence, on anvil, of, the mandate borne, in, Section 28-A of the Act, provisions of whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- " 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 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 subsection (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." (iii) hence sought parity qua compensation determined vis-a-vis those landowners concerned, who, had instituted reference petitions, before the Collector concerned, under, the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, and, petitions whereof, were, forwarded to the Reference Court, AND, the latter thereon, hence, enhanced the compensation amount vis-a-vis the apt aggrieved landowners. The mandate of Section 28A, of the Act, obviously, warranted its application vis-a-vis, the scribed motions, made by the petitioners herein, before, the Collector concerned, motions whereof, were, constituted, under, Section 28A of the Act. However, the apposite motions, were belatedly made, and, the apposite delay, in, the belated endeavours of the petitioners, were concerted, to be condoned by the petitioners, by theirs instituting apposite application(s) , cast under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the Collector concerned. However, the apposite motions, were belatedly made, and, the apposite delay, in, the belated endeavours of the petitioners, were concerted, to be condoned by the petitioners, by theirs instituting apposite application(s) , cast under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the Collector concerned. The apposite application(s) , cast under the provisions of Section 5, of the Limitation Act, were, as apparent, from, perusal, of, order(s) recorded on 24.05.1997 (existing at page 62 of the paper book) , hence allowed, and, the apposite delay was also condoned. However, subsequently, the successor-in-office, of, the authority concerned, who, pronounced, the order of 24.05.1997, rather dismissed the application(s) , cast under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and, obliviously also proceeded, to not, on anvil of Section 28A, of the Act, hence mete vis-a-vis the petitioners herein, the statutory benefits, of enhanced compensation, as, were bestowed, upon other aggrieved landowners, who, unlike the petitioners, had, preferred reference petitions, before, the learned Reference Court. 3. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, has on anvil, of, an pronouncement, recorded by this Court, in, CMPMO No.204 of 2005, in case, titled as Vilaswati and others vs. State of H.P., pronouncement whereof, is, vis-a-vis those landowners, whose lands, were acquired, under, a notification common inter se them, and, the petitioners herein, AND, more particularly by emphasising, upon, expostulations, occurring, in paragraph No.12 thereof, paragraph whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "12. However, as noticed hereinabove, delay in the present case has been condoned by the Land Acquisition Collector. However, as noticed hereinabove, delay in the present case has been condoned by the Land Acquisition Collector. No doubt the Land Acquisition Collector did not have the jurisdiction or the power to condone delay, in view of the above stated legal position, but that order could not have been reviewed or held to be infructuous by the successor of Land Acquisition Collector, who passed the order condoning the delay, because the Land Acquisition Collector does not have be power to review his own order." Hence has proceeded, to, espouse, (i) of, with the coordinate bench of this Court, hence, discountenancing, the apt reviewing(s) , by, the apt successor-in-office, of an earlier affirmative order, rather made by his predecessorin-office, upon, an application, cast under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, (ii) thereupon, he contends, that alike therewith, the orders rendered on 7.12.2004, being amenable, for, theirs being quashed and set aside, and, rather, alike therewithin, hence, directions being enjoined to be pronounced, upon, the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, to, pronounce a fresh decision, upon, the application(s) pending before him, and, as, stand constituted under Section 28-A of the Act, (iii) also he contends that with uncontrovertedly, the respondents rather implementing vis-a-vis the petitioners in CMPMO No. 204 of 2005, the pronouncement, recorded by this Court, (iv) thereupon, alike therewith, for ensuring non perpetuation, of, any discrimination inter se them, and, the petitioners herein, this Court also proceed, to make a direction, upon, the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, to bring the apposite parities, inter se the petitioners, in CMPMO No. 204 of 2005, and, vis-a-vis the petitioners herein. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the aforesaid submission, is, unacceptable to this Court (v) given, a catena of judicial verdicts, making clear expostulations, of, the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, being wholly disempowered, to make any pronouncement, upon applications, cast before him, under the provisions, of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, (vi) thereupon, with the orders, occurring at page 62 of the paper book(s) , whereunder, the predecessor-in-office of the apt Reviewing authority concerned, hence condoned the apposite delay, rather begetting visible infraction(s) vis-a-vis the apt aforesaid mandate, occurring, in a catena, of judicial verdicts, (vii) hence, befittingly constrains this Court, to, contrarily conclude that, despite, the apt review by the successor-in-office, of, the initially recorded order, rather being also beyond the domain, of his jurisdiction, (viii) nonetheless rather thereupon alone, the orders made subsequent, to, the orders occurring, at page 62, of the paper book, not constraining this Court, to, disturb, the apt thereof, hence, reviewing orders, given, theirs being also stained, with, an entrenched vice of voidness. (ix) Nor, in the garb of the purported inapposite exercise of jurisdiction of review, by, the authority, who pronounced the apt reviewing orders, (x) nor hence, in the garb of, theirs being untenable, this Court, would impute any sanctity qua the initial orders, hence, made by the apt predecessor-in-office, orders whereof occur at page 62, of the paper book, (xi) reiteratedly when the initial orders, are, made beyond the mandate of judicial verdicts, wherewithin, rather clear, candid and forthright, view is expostulated, of, no jurisdiction being foisted, in, the Land Acquisition Collector, to, condone delay(s) , in the apposite motions, being made before him, by the landowners concerned, AND, concomitantly, with grave irredeemability, gripping the initial orders, by mere circumvention(s) , their stain of voidness, being hence incurable. (xii) In aftermath, with the initial order, being gripped, with an apparent vice, of, statutory disempowerment, and, with the aforesaid vices, travelling continuously, upto, the stage of the successor-in-office reviewing it, also hence, the inaptly made apposite order, of, review, cannot constrain this Court, to set it aside, (xiii) reiteratedly given thereupon, this Court, condoning, the inapt exercise, of, jurisdiction, by the authority concerned, who, pronounced the initial order existing at page 62, of, the paper book. For hence avoiding, to overcome, the vices, of, nonest and voidness, gripping, the initial order(s) , thereupon, concomitantly, the apt reviewing orders, are, rendered rather construable to be both redundant, besides irrelevant. (xiv) Conspicuously when unless the aforesaid construction, is placed upon the apt Reviewing orders, thereupon, the catena, of verdicts, hence, barring the apt exercise, of jurisdiction by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, would be circumvented, (xv) nor foists any, leverage in the petitioners, to, on anvil thereof, contend that in consonance, with, the verdict pronounced, by a coordinate bench of this Court, in CMPMO No.204 of 2005, alike directions therewith, being meted upon the respondents herein, also, hence, theirs being required to be implemented, AND, rather contrarily the intially rendered orders, enjoin theirs being quashed and set aside. 4. 4. Even otherwise, no reliance can be placed, by this Court, upon, the rendition, made, by a coordinate bench of this Court, in CMPMO No. 204 of 2005, dehors, its acquiring any conclusivity, given it remaining unassailed, before the Hon''ble Apex Curt, as also, it standing implemented, AND, besides its non implementation vis-a-vis the petitioners herein, also cannot, purportedly hence sequel any befallment, of, or any perpetuation, of, discrimination, upon, the petitioners herein, besides the tentative meritworthiness, thereof, is, blunted, for the reasons (a) given the decision recorded by this Court, in CMPMO No. 204 of 2005, whereby, it proceeded, to, after reversing the order, of review, made, by the apt successor-in-office, of, the authority, who untenably pronounced the initial void orders, (b) AND, even despite the fact that the initial orders, were, purportedly inaptly reviewed, also rather hence rid the initial orders vis-a-vis, all, the gross irredeemable entrenched stains, of, apt statutory disempowerments, (c) thereupon, rather with a coordinate bench, of this, Court, earlier hence visibly condoning the inapt initial exercise of jurisdiction, by, the apt predecessor-in-office, and, also hence rendering a verdict, clearly per incuriam vis-a-vis the apt jurisidictional interdictions, cast in a catena of judicial verdicts, (d) wherewithin, an absolute bar, is cast, against the Land Acquisition Collector, in condoning, the apposite delay, in, the belated preferment of, an application under Section 28A of the Act, (e) rather with the apposite empowerment being solitarily vested, in, the Reference Court, and, being exercisable, only upon, the apposite application(s) , being referred by the Collector concerned vis-a-vis it, whereas, with the apposite transmission, not, evidently occurring hereat, also constrains this Court, to hence, dissent therefrom. 5. For the foregoing reasons, all the petitions, are dismissed. However, for meteing complete justice vis-avis, the petitioners, it is still open, to, the petitioners herein, to institute appropriate application(s) , before, the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, who may thereafter forward them, to the learned Reference Court, for the latter, hence, in accordance with law, condoning, the delay, in, the apposite motions, being made before the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, and, on the delays being condoned, the Courts concerned/he Collector concerned shall make a pronouncement, on merits, in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be be completed within six months from today. All pending applications also stand disposed of.