JUDGMENT : 1. The application submitted by the 1st petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act seeking re-determination of compensation was rejected by the 3rd respondent by Ext.P18 order on the ground that she cannot be considered as a person interested and therefore cannot possibly be aggrieved by the award of the Collector. The above order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The facts are as follows:- (a) The 1st petitioner herein is the mother of petitioners 2 and 3. They are the wife and children of late K. Sudhakaran, former Advocate General of the State of Kerala. Late Sudhakaran passed away on 21.11.2007 and being a Hindu, governed by the Hindu Succession Act, the petitioners are the legal heirs. (b) In the year 2005, late Sudhakaran executed a Will, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. As per the terms, the 2nd petitioner was bequeathed with the entire rights over an item of property, having an extent of 5 cents, comprised in Sy. No. 2213/1 and Sy. No. 2213/4 of Ernakulam Village, which property had devolved on the executant as per Document No. 2157 of 1975 of the Ernakulam Sub Registry Office. The 2nd petitioner was held entitled to all the movable and immovable properties including the rights over the assets, which the executant may acquire till his death. However, it was specifically stated that in the event of the 1st petitioner surviving the executant, the 2nd petitioner was required to care for her treatment and day-to-day expenses without fail till the end of her life. (c) Late K. Sudhakaran owned an item of property having an extent of 47.40 Ares which devolved on him as per partition deed vide No. 128 of 1950. Out of the above property, 41.20 Ares was assigned by Sudhakaran on 17.2.2005 through his power of attorney holder, the 2nd petitioner herein, to one Salahudhin, by Ext.P5 deed. In Ext.P5 deed, it is mentioned that the balance property remaining in the possession of K. Sudhakaran has been marked out for widening the road. (d) The petitioners contend that what was left behind after Ext. P5 assignment deed was 2.40 Ares of land in Re-Sy. No. 529/21 and 3.80 Ares of land in Re-Sy. No. 528/8 of Attipra village. In Ext.P5 deed, it is mentioned that the balance property remaining in the possession of K. Sudhakaran has been marked out for widening the road. (d) The petitioners contend that what was left behind after Ext. P5 assignment deed was 2.40 Ares of land in Re-Sy. No. 529/21 and 3.80 Ares of land in Re-Sy. No. 528/8 of Attipra village. The above extent of the properties was acquired pursuant to Ext.P3 notification dated 23.11.2007 for the purpose of widening of the Ulloor-Akkulam- Kuzhivila NH Bypass. (e) On 21.11.2007, K. Sudhakaran passed away as is evident from Ext.P1 death certificate. (f) On 7.1.2010, Ext.P4 notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued addressed to Sudhakaran and the petitioners herein informing them that they were entitled to compensation for the acquisition of the said land. The petitioners were directed to produce documents to substantiate their rights. (g) When the compensation due to the petitioners was not disbursed, they approached this Court and filed W.P. (C) No. 5318/2010 seeking directions to the State to pay the compensation with interest in respect of the land acquired and further directions. By Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed the Special Tahsildar (LA), to disburse the compensation amount together with interest in respect of the two items of the property within a period of one month. (h) The petitioners contend that the adjacent property owners, whose property was acquired under the very same notification, approached the reference court seeking enhancement of compensation. By Ext.P7 judgment dated 19.11.2018, in LAR No. 111 of 2013, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,17,100/- per Are. (i) Immediately thereafter, on 1.2.2019, the 1st petitioner, claiming to be a person interested in land covered by the same notification and contending that she is aggrieved by the award passed by the Collector, preferred Ext.P8 application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhanced compensation. (j) When the 3rd respondent failed to take prompt action, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P. (C) No. 30546/2019 seeking directions and by judgment dated 5.12.2019, the writ petition was disposed of directing the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, to take a decision on the application within a period of three months. (j) When the 3rd respondent failed to take prompt action, the petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P. (C) No. 30546/2019 seeking directions and by judgment dated 5.12.2019, the writ petition was disposed of directing the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, to take a decision on the application within a period of three months. (k) By Ext.P11 order dated 10.3.2020, the District Collector, after considering the relevant records, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 28A of the Act and the revenue authorities were directed to take expeditious steps to disburse the compensation amount. (l) On 26.11.2020, Ext.P12 communication was issued by the 3rd respondent seeking more clarity, as according to him, instead of claiming compensation, based on award passed by the reference court in LAR 111/2013, the petitioners in their applications had demanded compensation, on the basis of the award passed in LAR No. 140/2013. According to the petitioners, the reasons stated in Ext.P12 are frivolous. (m) Later, on 5.1.2021, Ext.P13 notice was issued directing the petitioners to appear before the 3rd respondent and produce documents showing their entitlement to receive the compensation as the legal heirs of late K. Sudhakaran. On 13.1.2021, the counsel for the petitioners appeared before the 3rd respondent and produced Exts.P14 and P15 affidavits signed by the petitioners 1 and 3 reiterating that they have no objection in disbursing the compensation to the 2nd petitioner, Sri. Radha Ramanan. 3. Complaining of failure of the respondents to act in accordance with the law, this Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief: (a) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to pay the amount of compensation with interest due to late K. Sudhakaran in respect of the land acquired by respondents 2 and 3 evidenced by Ext.P4 to the petitioners on the basis of Ext.P7 taking into consideration Ext.P8 application and Ext.P11 order of the 2nd respondent forthwith. 4. While the writ petition was pending consideration, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P18 order rejecting the application filed under Section 28A of the Act on the ground that the 1st petitioner, who has filed the application, has no claim in the land acquired as the land acquisition compensation was in fact awarded to the 2nd petitioner. 4. While the writ petition was pending consideration, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P18 order rejecting the application filed under Section 28A of the Act on the ground that the 1st petitioner, who has filed the application, has no claim in the land acquired as the land acquisition compensation was in fact awarded to the 2nd petitioner. It is further stated in the order that as the 1st petitioner is not a person aggrieved by the award of the Collector, she has no right to file an application under Section 28A of the Act in L.A.C. No. 72/09 and 23/09. 5. An application was filed by the petitioners to amend the pleadings as well as the prayer, which was allowed. 6. In the amended writ petition, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the 1st petitioner is a person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) and Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and is competent to file Ext.P8 application on the basis of recitals in Ext.P2 Will and that respondents 2 and 3 are duty-bound to re-determine the amount of compensation; to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to reconsider Ext.P8 application submitted by the 1st petitioner under Section 28A of the Act; to quash Ext.P18 and to direct the respondents to pay the amount of compensation in respect of the land acquired by the respondents 2 and 3 as evidenced by Ext.P4 on the basis of Ext.P7 taking into consideration Ext.P8 application and Ext.P11 order of the 2nd respondent. 7. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent. After narrating the statement of events, it is stated that as per the Will executed by late K. Sudhakaran, the 2nd petitioner became the absolute owner of the property and he is the person who is entitled to get the monetary benefits. Accordingly, compensation for the land acquisition was awarded to the 2nd petitioner as per Annexure-R3(d) and R3(e) proceedings. According to the respondents, only Radha Ramanan can maintain an application under Section 28A in the facts and circumstances. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner is not a person aggrieved by the award of the Collector. 8. I have heard the submissions advanced by Sri. D. Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 9. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner is not a person aggrieved by the award of the Collector. 8. I have heard the submissions advanced by Sri. D. Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 9. The only question that needs a resolution is whether the 1st petitioner is a “person interested” in any land covered by the same notification and therefore aggrieved by the award passed by the Collector. 10. For the resolution of the controversy it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 11. Section 3(b) defines the expression “person interested.” The said provision reads as follows: Section 3 (b) - The expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. 12. A reading of the definition would show that it is an inclusive definition and includes all persons claiming an interest in the compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act. Any person may also be termed as a “person interested” if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. 13. The controversy revolves around section 28A of the Act which deals with re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. Section 28 A reads as follows: 28A. Any person may also be termed as a “person interested” if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. 13. The controversy revolves around section 28A of the Act which deals with re-determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. Section 28 A reads as follows: 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 him 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, 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. 14. Section 28A of the Act was inserted by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. 14. Section 28A of the Act 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 re-determination 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.” 15. The perusal of the provisions contained in sub-section (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-section (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 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 vs. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736 ]. 16. In Mewa Ram vs. 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. 17. In Babua Ram vs. 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. 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). 18. In Union of India vs. 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 re-determination 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 re-determination of amount of compensation is sought. (vi) Only one application can be moved under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation by an applicant.” 19. Two reasons have been stated in the impugned order to come to a conclusion that the application filed by the 1st petitioner is not maintainable. The first reason is that the 1st petitioner cannot have any claim in the land acquired as the land acquisition compensation was not awarded to her but was awarded to the 2nd petitioner, who is none other than her son. The second reason is that she cannot be a “person interested” so as to be aggrieved by the award of the Collector. It has to be immediately noted that neither the 1st petitioner nor the 3rd petitioner has staked a claim over the compensation. They have stated in unequivocal terms that the compensation for the acquisition can be granted to the 2nd petitioner, who obtained all the rights over the property on the strength of the Will executed by his father. Exts.P14 and P15 are the affidavits filed by the 1st and 3rd petitioners before the 3rd respondent asserting that they have no objection in awarding the compensation to the 2nd petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, is she disentitled to even file an application as a person interested in the award of compensation is the question that begs an answer? 20. A reading of Ext.P2 Will would show that the property, which is the subject matter of acquisition, was bequeathed in favour of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner has been burdened with the responsibility of looking after the 1st petitioner and taking care of her treatment and daily needs. She can therefore certainly claim that she would be a person affected by the extinguishment of rights in the land. The 2nd petitioner has been burdened with the responsibility of looking after the 1st petitioner and taking care of her treatment and daily needs. She can therefore certainly claim that she would be a person affected by the extinguishment of rights in the land. Even otherwise, a careful reading of Section 3 (b) and Section 28A of the Act would indicate that the legislature, by giving an inclusive definition, wanted to bring with the ambit of the definition “person interested” all such persons claiming any interest in the compensation to be made. By a deeming fiction, even a person interested in an easement affecting the land is brought with the ambit of the term “person interested.” 21. In M. Kuppuswami vs. The Special Tahsildar (LA), 1967 (1) Mad. L.J. 329, wherein Venkatadri, J. interpreting the definition of “person interested” observed as follows:- “The only question for consideration, therefore, is whether the petitioner is a person interested, as defined in S.3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. The definition Section says that the expression ‘person interested’ includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act. The expression ‘person interested’ is very comprehensive and it does not profess to give an exhaustive definition. The expression ‘person interested’ has been interpreted by various Courts and, the trend of the opinion seems to be that I should give a liberal interpretation. xxx xxx xxx On a review of the case-law on the subject, it seems to me that the expression ‘person interested’ does not require that a person must really have an interest in the land sought to be acquired. It is enough if he claims an interest in compensation, as distinguished from an interest in the property sought to be acquired. As long as a person claims an interest in the compensation, he is a person interested within the meaning of the definition of the expression.” 22. In Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. vs. Francis Victor Coutinho, (1980) 3 SCC 223 , the Apex Court, while examining the scope of Section 18 of the Act, referred to the definition of the expression “person interested” contained in Section 3( b) of the Act and some of the judicial precedents and observed: (SCC p. 228, Para 14) “14. In Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. vs. Francis Victor Coutinho, (1980) 3 SCC 223 , the Apex Court, while examining the scope of Section 18 of the Act, referred to the definition of the expression “person interested” contained in Section 3( b) of the Act and some of the judicial precedents and observed: (SCC p. 228, Para 14) “14. Thus, the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition of ‘person interested’ must be liberally construed so as to include a body, local authority, or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. In our opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. How can it be said that a person for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the compensation is not a person interested even though its stake may be extremely vital? For instance, the land acquisition proceedings may be held to be invalid and thus a person concerned is completely deprived of the benefit which is proposed to be given to him. Similarly, if such a person is not heard by the Collector or a court, he may have to pay a very heavy compensation which, in case he is allowed to appear before a court, he could have satisfied it that the compensation was far too heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the land.” 23. In Sunderlal vs. Paramsukhdas, AIR 1968 SC 366 , the Apex Court had occasion to consider the scope and breadth of the term “person interested” as defined under Section 3 (b) of the Act. It was held as follows in Para 10 of the judgment: 10. Before examining the authorities cited at the Bar, it is necessary to examine the scheme and the provisions of the Act insofar as they are relevant to the question of determination of compensation, the question of apportionment of the compensation and the question as to the persons who are entitled to be heard. Before examining the authorities cited at the Bar, it is necessary to examine the scheme and the provisions of the Act insofar as they are relevant to the question of determination of compensation, the question of apportionment of the compensation and the question as to the persons who are entitled to be heard. S.3 (b) defines the expression “person interested” as follows: “The expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.” It will be noticed that it is an inclusive definition. It is not necessary that in order to fall within the definition a person should claim an interest in land, which has been acquired. A person becomes a person interested if he claims an interest in compensation to be awarded. It seems to us that Paramsukhdas is a “person interested” within S.3 (b) of the Act because he claims an interest in compensation. But before he can be made a party in a reference it has to be seen whether he comes within S.20 (b) and S.21 of the Act. 24. In view of the binding precedents above, I am of the considered opinion that the 3rd respondent was not justified in rejecting the petition filed by the 1st petitioner seeking re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Act. In view of the object and reasons which persuaded the legislature to include Section 28A in the Act, the exhortation by the Courts that the definition of ‘person interested’ must be liberally construed, and by taking note of the principles of equity, justice and good conscience, I am of the considered opinion that Ext. P18 order cannot be sustained. 25. Resultantly, I hold that the 1st petitioner would be a “person interested” and therefore entitled to file Exhibit P8 application. Exhibit P18 order will stand set aside. The 3rd respondent shall take on file Ext.P8 application and re-determine the amount of compensation as ordered by the 2nd respondent as per Exhibit P11. The entire exercise shall be concluded as per procedure and in accordance with the law, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 26. The entire exercise shall be concluded as per procedure and in accordance with the law, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 26. This writ petition will stand disposed of.