JUDGMENT : The application filed by the petitioner herein for redetermination of compensation based on an award passed by the reference Court in respect of an item of property covered by the very same notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was rejected by the respondent by Exhibit P2 order on the ground that the properties, though covered under the very same notification, fell in different categories. The said order is assailed in this Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner states that property having an extent of 0.4031 hectares of land in Re-survey No.199/4 of Ramanthali Village was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of establishing the Naval Academy at Ezhimala. The petitioner contends that in respect of another item of property covered under the very same notification, a person aggrieved by the award passed by the District Collector, had filed a reference application before the Sub Court, Payyannur as LAR No.117/16. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to pass an award enhancing the compensation. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed Exhibit P1 representation before the 2nd respondent seeking a reference under Section 28A of the Act. The said application came to be dismissed by Exhibit P2 order on the ground that the properties, though covered under the very same notification, fell into different categories. The aforesaid order is under challenge. 3. I have heard Sri.V.N. Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader. 4. Section 28A of the Act which was inserted by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons, for insertion of Section 28-A, it was, inter alia, observed: “(ix) Considering that the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act is not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and is usually exercised only by the comparatively affluent landowners and that this causes considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties, it is proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek redetermination of compensation, once any one of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act.” 5. Section 28 A reads 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 subsection (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.” 6. A perusal of the provisions contained in sub-sec. (1) of S.28A of the Act would show that after an award is made under Part III whereby the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under S.11, a right accrues to a person interested in the other land covered by the same notification under sub-sec. (1) of S.28A of the Act would show that after an award is made under Part III whereby the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under S.11, a right accrues to a person interested in the other land covered by the same notification under sub-sec. (1) of S.4, who is also aggrieved by the award of the Collector but who had not made an application to the Collector under S.18, to move an application before the Collector for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to him on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. This application for re-determination of compensation is required to be made within three months from the date of award of the Court. The right to make the application under S.28A arises from the award of the Court on the basis of which the person making the application is seeking re-determination of the compensation. (See Union of India V Pradeep Kumari [ 1995 (2) SCC 736 ]. 7. In Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana [ (1986) 4 SCC 151 ], the Apex Court had occasion to hold that having regard to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act, it is clear that Section 28-A is intended and meant for the inarticulate and poor people who by reason of their poverty and ignorance have failed to take advantage of the right of reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. It was also held that the provision was not intended to reopen an award that had attained finality and was of binding nature. 8. In Babua Ram v. State of U.P. [ (1995) 2 SCC 689 ], it was held that before Section 28-A of the Act can be invoked, a person must show that he is a person interested and is aggrieved as in respect of other lands covered by the same notification under Section 4, higher compensation has been awarded. An aggrieved person who had not made an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act thus becomes entitled to apply under Section 28-A of the Act. The right to an aggrieved person under Section 28-A arises only when the Reference Court grants compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. An aggrieved person who had not made an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act thus becomes entitled to apply under Section 28-A of the Act. The right to an aggrieved person under Section 28-A arises only when the Reference Court grants compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Such an application can be made in writing by any “aggrieved” person. The said expression would cover any interested person who had failed to make an application for reference under Section 18 and would not be confined to those who received compensation under protest. It was also indicated that Section 28-A is a “complete code” in itself providing substantive right to “an aggrieved person” to claim compensation equal to that awarded to his neighbour covered by the same notification under Section 4(1). 9. In Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari [ (1995) 2 SCC 736 ], while lucidly explaining the object underlying Section 28-A of the Act it was observed as follows in para 10 of the judgment. “10. … [such object] would be better achieved by giving the expression ‘an award’ in Section 28-A its natural meaning as meaning the award that is made by the court in Part III of the Act after the coming into force of Section 28-A. If the said expression in Section 28-A(1) is thus construed, a person would be able to seek redetermination of the amount of compensation payable to him provided the following conditions are satisfied: (i) An award has been made by the court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28-A; (ii) By the said award the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference; (iii) The person moving the application under Section 28-A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the said award relates; (iv) The person moving the application did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18; (v) The application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the redetermination of amount of compensation is sought; and (vi) Only one application can be moved under Section 28-A for redetermination of compensation by an applicant.” 10. In Union of India v. Hansoli Devi [ (2002) 7 SCC 273 ], a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had held that dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay also would not come in the way of the claimant for redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. Such a person can be said to be a “person aggrieved” and would be entitled to make an application to receive compensation provided the conditions of the said section are complied with. 11. In view of the above foundational principles, what had to be ascertained by the 2nd respondent was : (a) whether an award has been made by the court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28-A; (b) by the said award, whether compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference; (c) whether the petitioner who had filed the application under Section 28-A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the said award relates; (d) whether the petitioner had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18; (e) whether the application was within time. i.e, within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the redetermination of the amount of compensation is sought; (f) that no earlier application had been moved by the petitioner under Section 28-A for redetermination of compensation 12. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the property in which reference was answered by the reference court and the property owned and possessed by the petitioner was covered under the very same notification under Section 4(1). The only reason stated for rejection of the application was that though covered under the very same notification, the property which was the subject matter of the Land Acquisition reference fell in a different category. In view of the discussion above, the order passed is clearly unsustainable under the law and the same is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Exhibit P2 will stand set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Exhibit P1 application afresh and pass orders in the light of the principles above within a period of one month.