JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The lands, of, the predecessors-in-interest, of co- petitioners No.1, 2, and 3 to 6 herein, namely respectrively one Lajje Ram, and, one Fattu, stood, under a common notification, of, 23.11.1982, hence, acquired for construction of NH-21. The land acquisition Collector concerned, vis-a-vis, the lands of the afore, determined compensation amount. However, the afore predecessors-in-interest, of, the afore co-petitioners, standing aggrieved by determination of compensation, vis-a-vis, their acquired lands, hence, by the Land Acquisition Collector, rather through, theirs constituting, a valid reference, under, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the learned Reference Court concerned, sought enhancement of compensation determined, vis-a-vis, their lands, by the Land Acquisition Collector, (a) and, their land reference petition bearing No. 9 of 1987, stood, under a common verdict rendered thereon, on 1.9.1988, answered in their favour, and, therethrough compensation, vis-a-vis, their land, stood, enhanced. However, the predecessor-in-interest of co-petitioner No.7 to 9, namely Jagat Ram, and, Mansu Ram, did not constitute any valid reference, against the determination of compensation, vis-a-vis, them by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned. However, the effect(s) thereof would be answered hereinafter. 2. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting litigants, do not controvert, the factum qua the landowners, other than, the predecessors-in-interest, of co-petitioners No.1 to 6 herein, proceeding, to constitute RFAs bearing RFA No. 44 of 1988, RFA No. 72 of 1988, RFA No. 69 of 1988 before this Court, and, (a) therethrough, statutory benefits higher than the one awarded by the learned Reference Court, upon, the apposite land reference petitions hence stood accorded, vis-a-vis, them. Upon, bestowing of benefits, upon, the landowners concerned, whereupon whom, this Court through, Annexure P-4, had accorded relief, higher than the one accorded, vis-a-vis, them, in their respectively constituted land reference petitions, (b) one Janawar alias Jorawar, arrayed as co-petitioner No.1 in Land Reference Case No. 6 of 1987, and, one Lajja Ram, one Fateh Chand @ Fattu, and, one Dhani Ram, all respectively arrayed as co-petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1987, proceeded, to, on 5.6.1997, constitute a petition under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, for, hence, vis-a-vis, them also compensation amount, being determined, at par, with the appellants, in RFA No. 44 of 1988, decided on 20.03.1986. The afore requisite application, cast under the provisions of Section 28-A, of the Land Acquisition Act before the land Land Acquisition Collector, and, borne in Annexure P-2, stood dismissed, by the latter vide order rendered on 29.1.2014, borne in Annexure P-1. The petitioners are aggrieved therefrom, hence, motioned this Court. 3. As expostulated in a judgment, rendered by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a case titled as Md. Maqdoom Ahmed and another vs. Special Deputy Collector, (2003) 4 ALD 715 , a period limitation of three months, stands, prescribed, for the relevant purpose, rather in Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, and, the afore being not relaxable nor condonable, through, an application, cast under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. Be that as it may, even the afore expostulation of law also find explicit expression, in a judgment, of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as Popat Bahiru Govardhane and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2013) 10 SCC 765 , wherein, in paragraph No.14 thereof, (a) the principle of hardship; (b) besides the principle of period of limitation prescribed in Section 28-A, being computable, from, the date of knowledge rather stands discountenanced 5. Even if, assumingly, Annexure P-2, stood instituted within the period of limitation, prescribed, in Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Even if, assumingly, Annexure P-2, stood instituted within the period of limitation, prescribed, in Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, (a) the endeavour of the petitioners herein to claim, the, benefit(s) of the judgment pronounced by this Court, upon, RFA No. 44 of 1988, RFA No. 72 of 1988, and, RFA No. 69 of 1988, constituted before this Court, by those landowners, who were also aggrieved, by the award pronounced, by the learned Reference Court, upon, their apposite land reference petitions, all rather arising from a notification common hereat, yet cannot be countenanced, (I) as, a plain reading of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, wherewithin, the apt parlance, borne by underlined phrase "the persons interested in all other land covered by the same notification under Section 4 subsection (1) 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 amount of compensation awarded by the Court", (ii) is qua it hence carrying, the, natural connotations, vis-a-vis, the benefits enshrined, in, Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, being bestowable, only, upon those landowners concerned, (iii) who after, an, award being rendered, by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, omit to constitute, a valid reference, under, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (iv) rather other landowner concerned, whose lands, along with, the land of the landowners, rather proceed, to, canvass the apt statutory remedy, by constituting a valid reference, under, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and, their striving(s) therethrough begetting success, (v) thereupon, the omitting landowners, being bestowed with a statutory right, to through recoursing Section 28-A, of, the Land Acquisition Act, and, within the period of limitation, prescribed in the proviso, borne underneath, to hence espouse, for parity of determination, of compensation inter se them, and, the landowners concerned, who succeed hence in, the, validly constituted petition, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hence, before the learned Reference Court. However, when the afore underlined phrase occurring in Section 28-A, also does not, narrate any explicit statutory expression (vi) that the landowners concerned, also, upon making omission(s), after, receiving, the, beneficial verdict, vis-a-vis, them, from, the learned Reference Court concerned, as hereat the co-petitioners, through, their predecessors-in-interest, hence, achieved/received, to, thereafter rather constitute a challenge thereagainst, under, Section 54, of the Land Acquisition Act, before the High Court, (vii) thereupon, also theirs being entitled, to the benefits, of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. In other words, the landowners concerned, who constitute a valid reference, under, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, upon, failing to thereafter, cast a challenge thereto, by availment of the remedy constituted, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, and, whereas, others recoursing the afore remedy, thereupon, upon, the latters' remedy begetting success, rather would not bestow, any, entitlements, vis-a-vis, any omitting landowners, qua, the, benefits, of, Section 28-A, of, the Land Acquisition Act. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The impugned order is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.