ORDER : In all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who happen to be the losers of the lands in the acquisition for the Upper Krishna Project are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus for considering their claim for higher compensation under Section 28-A of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the compensation granted to the owners of the land that figured in the very same acquisition notification has been enhanced by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. They have also sought for quashing of the endorsements whereby their claim for the re-determination of compensation has been rejected by the respondents. 2. After service of notice respondent has entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Veena Hedge, who opposes grant of relief to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all they had filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation on par with those who have been granted enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act on reference in respect of the lands which figured along with the petition lands in the very same acquisition notification; the same could not have been rejected by the respondent-LAO on the ground that petitioners lands although figure in the very same notification are situate in different villages and therefore the same need to be invalidated and further the matter needs to be remitted back for reconsideration. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Veena Hegde refuting the contention of the petitioners makes submission in justification of the impugned orders made by the respondent-LAO; she contends that though petitioners lands figured in the very same notification in which the lands of others who have been now granted enhancement in reference under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioners cannot claim similar enhancement since their lands are situate in different villages. She further submits that all the petitioners having accepted the compensation granted under the award made by the LAO, have no right to seek benefit under Section 28-A of the Act. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-LAO. I have perused petition papers. 6. The section 28-A(1) of the Act, reads as under : “28-A(1). 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-LAO. I have perused petition papers. 6. The section 28-A(1) of the Act, reads as under : “28-A(1). Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of 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.” 7. Section 28-A enables a land owner to approach the Collector for re-determination of the amount of compensation in spite of the fact an application under Section 18 had not been made at the relevant time. The provision appears to have been enacted with the sole object of ensuring parity of treatment in the award of compensation to all land owners who land has been acquired by the State through the same notification. A land owner who has been deprived of his property by an act of compulsory acquisition by the State may not be able to approach the competent authority for seeking a reference or pursue litigation at different levels. In spite of this, it confers a right on the land owner to approach the Collector within the specified period of three months from the date of the award for re-determination of the compensation. Dalip Kaur v. Union of India, AIR 1994 P & H 140 at 141. 8. In spite of this, it confers a right on the land owner to approach the Collector within the specified period of three months from the date of the award for re-determination of the compensation. Dalip Kaur v. Union of India, AIR 1994 P & H 140 at 141. 8. The second contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Veena Hegde that no enhancement of compensation can be granted to the petitioners since they have received the compensation under the award made by the respondent-LAO without any protest, is unsustainable going by the text of the provision. It is settled legal position that an application for re-determination of compensation on the basis of Court award under Section 18 can be made even by a person who has received the compensation under the Collectors Award without any protest vide Union of India and another vs. Hansoli Devi and others [ AIR 2002 SC 3240 ]. Such a contention cannot be countenanced without straining the textual language or the Parliamentary intent of the provision of Section 28-A of the Act. 9. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsements all evenly dated 18.06.2011, made by the Respondent-LAO at Annexures – H, J, K, L, M; the matters are remitted to the first respondent for consideration afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months, after issuing notice to the all the stake holders including the petitioners. No costs.