ORDER : 1. The issue that falls for consideration in these three Writ Petitions is as to whether the unofficial respondents (Land Owners), who lost their lands in acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are entitled for compensation on par with the land owners, who sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and got the compensation enhanced by virtue of award passed by the reference Court, as well as the order passed in the appeals filed there against before this Court in terms of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or not ? 2. The facts and the issue that is required to be decided in all the three Writ Petitions is one and the same and hence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts of the case that lead to filing of the present Writ Petitions are as under. 4. The respondent No.4 herein initiated land acquisition proceedings by issuing notification, dated 21.06.1985, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the benefit of the petitioner-company herein and an Award was passed bearing No.B/4113/1984, dated 03.08.1987. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed under the said award some of the claimants/land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the same was taken on file as O.P.No.76 of 1988, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. The said O.P.No.76 of 1988 was disposed of by an order, dated 30.10.1989, enhancing the compensation for certain lands from Rs.7,000/- per acre to Rs.10,000/- per acre and other landS from Rs.6,000/- per acre to Rs.9,500/- per acre. The unofficial respondents herein in three Writ Petitions are not the persons, who sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. But the unofficial respondents herein after having come to know about the order, dated 30.10.1989, passed in O.P.No.76 of 1988, submitted an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before respondent No.4 herein seeking re-determination of compensation in terms of the order, dated 30.10.1989, passed in O.P.No.76 of 1988. But the unofficial respondents herein after having come to know about the order, dated 30.10.1989, passed in O.P.No.76 of 1988, submitted an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before respondent No.4 herein seeking re-determination of compensation in terms of the order, dated 30.10.1989, passed in O.P.No.76 of 1988. In the meanwhile, the land owners, who are the claimants in O.P.No.76 of 1988, filed an appeal against the order, dated 30.10.1989, passed by reference Court videA.S.No.978 of 1990, before this Court (erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh). 5. The said applications submitted by the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.5037 of 2017 were disposed of by respondent No.4, by an awards, dated 21.11.1994 and 25.08.2003, enhancing the compensation in terms of the order, dated 30.10.1989, and the said enhanced compensation was accepted and deposited by the petitioner-company. The appeal Suit in A.S.No.978 of 1990 was finally disposed of by this Court by judgment, dated 22.02.2000, remanding the matter back to the reference Court. On remand, the reference Court fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre and an amount of Rs.15,000/- for sub-soil rights per acre. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed A.S.Nos.688 of 2001 and 2482 of 2001, before this Court and whereas the land owners/claimants filed A.S.No.1634 of 2001. All the three appeal suits were disposed of by this Court by a common judgment, dated 16.12.2013, wherein the appeal suits filed by the petitioner-company were dismissed and the A.S.No.1634 of 2001, filed by the land owners/claimants was allowed by fixing the compensation at Rs.90,000/- per acre. 6. After having come to know about the judgment passed in A.S.No.1634 of 2001, the unofficial respondents in Writ Petition No.5037 of 2017 filed a petition seeking enhancement of compensation on par with the compensation fixed by this Court. Considering the said application, respondent No.4 herein passed the impugned Award, dated 03.08.2015, enhancing the compensation in terms of the order passed by this Court in A.S.No.1634 of 2001, dated 16.12.2013 and the same was approved by respondent No.3, through impugned proceedings, dated 12.05.2016. Aggrieved by the said Award of respondent No.4 and the proceedings of the respondent No.3 approving the said award, the Writ Petition No.5037 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner-company. Aggrieved by the said Award of respondent No.4 and the proceedings of the respondent No.3 approving the said award, the Writ Petition No.5037 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner-company. In W.P.Nos.5415 and 5406 of 2017 also the fact situation is same as in the case of W.P.No.5037 of 2017 though Awards by L.A.O and Judgment and Decree of reference Court and Appellate Court are different. There is no dispute about fact situation and only the legal issue is required to be considered in this batch of matters. Hence, there is no necessity to refer to the facts in the W.P.Nos.5415 and 5406 of 2017. 7. This Court while admitting the Writ Petitions considering the law laid down in the case of Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others, 1995(2) SCC 736 , granted interim suspension of the impugned award and the proceedings of respondent No.3. The unofficial respondents filed counter and vacate petitions. 8. As already noted above, the applications submitted by the unofficial respondents were decided by respondent No.4, during pendency of an appeal filed against the award passed by the reference Court. There is no dispute on factual aspects and hence there is no necessity to deliberate on factual aspects in detail. 9. Heard Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. Ch.Avani Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 10. Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the applications that were submitted by the unofficial respondents seeking enhancement of compensation in terms of order passed in A.S.No.1634 of 2001, is to be treated as second application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the first application submitted by the unofficial respondents under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhancement of compensation in terms of the award passed in O.P.No.76 of 1988, was already considered and disposed of by respondent No.4, as early as in the year 1994 and 2003. In support of his contention he placed heavy reliance on a Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others (1 supra), and also on another Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus and others, 2022 (9) SCC 516 , to contend that the second application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not maintainable. It is also contended that the purpose of not entertaining the second application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is that there should be some difference between the persons, who sought for reference under Section 18 and the persons, who failed to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and as such the persons claiming under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are entitled for compensation only in terms of the award passed by the reference Court, but not for the compensation enhanced by the appellate Courts thereon. He further contended that in the event of reduction of compensation by the appellate Court, the unofficial respondents would not come forward to refund the compensation that was already paid to them and it is not possible to recover such excess compensation paid to the unofficial respondents at a subsequent date and for that reason also they are not entitled for enhanced compensation fixed by the appellate Court. For the said reasons and on the above grounds learned counsel seeks the indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned award and the consequential proceedings approving the award, issued by the respondent Nos.4 and 3 respectively. 11. For the said reasons and on the above grounds learned counsel seeks the indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned award and the consequential proceedings approving the award, issued by the respondent Nos.4 and 3 respectively. 11. On the other hand, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for unofficial respondents contended that the application submitted by the unofficial respondents seeking enhancement of compensation in terms of the order passed by this Court in A.S.No.1634 of 2001, cannot be treated as a second application, as the unofficial respondents are only seeking payment of compensation in terms of the award passed by the reference Court, as enhanced by this Court in A.S.No.1634 of 2001 and as such, the present application submitted by the unofficial respondents is to be treated as a continuation of the application that was submitted in the year 1990, and further contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 ought not have disposed of the application that was submitted in the year 1990, as the appeal filed against the order in O.P.No.76 of 1988, was already pending by the date of disposal of the said applications by respondent No.3. In support of his contention, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Bharatsing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2018) 11 SCC 92 . 12. It is settled law that no second application is maintainable under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There cannot be any dispute on that legal proposition. The questions that arise for consideration in these cases are as under:- (i) Whether the applications submitted by the unofficial respondents seeking for payment of compensation in terms of order passed in A.S.No.1634 of 2001 are to be treated as second application? (ii) Whether the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are right in disposing of the initial application submitted under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, extending the benefit of enhanced compensation in terms of award passed in O.P.No.76 of 1988, when there was already an appeal filed there against and was pending before this Court? (iii) Whether the impugned Awards passed by respondent No.4 are in accordance with law? 13. (iii) Whether the impugned Awards passed by respondent No.4 are in accordance with law? 13. Before answering the above questions it is necessary to refer to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharatsing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors. (supra) on which strong reliance is placed by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel. In the said case, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on 04.06.1977 and on reference the compensation was enhanced by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by an award, dated 01.10.1992. Thereafter, the appellant therein filed an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by which date an appeal was already filed against the award, dated 31.12.1992, passed by the reference Court and the same was disposed of by the High Court, by a Judgment, dated 23.03.2009, enhancing the compensation. During pendency of the said appeal before the High Court, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award, dated 25.10.2000, on the application filed by the appellant therein under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After the order passed by the High Court in an appeal, the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court filed a fresh application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for enhancement of compensation in terms of the Judgment, dated 23.03.2009 passed in appeal. As the same was not considered favourably, the appellant therein approached the High Court by filing the Writ Petition, but, the same was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that successive applications as and when further enhancement was made are not permissible. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered in elaborate the scope and ambit of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and also having taken note of the case of Union of India and Another v. Pradeep Kumari and Others (supra) and various other Judgments have arrived at a conclusion that the Land Acquisition Collector is not right in deciding the applications submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, during pendency of the appeal, filed against the award passed by the reference Court. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court having found fault with the Land Acquisition Collector in deciding the applications submitted under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, during pendency of the appeal before the High Court, passed orders directing the Land Acquisition Collector to consider application, submitted by the petitioner afresh under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 14. The contentions of Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there should be some difference between the persons seeking reference under Section 18 and the persons who failed to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, etc., as noted above are concerned, all such contentions are already considered and answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Of India v. Munshi Ram, 2006 (4) SCC 538 , wherein it was held as under:- “We hold that under Section 28-A of the Act, the compensation payable to the applicants is the same which is finally payable to those claimants who sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. In case of reduction of compensation by the superior courts, the applicants under Section 28-A may be directed to refund the excess amount received by them in the light of reduced compensation finally awarded.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. Thus, it is clear that the compensation that is payable to the applicants under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the compensation that is finally payable to the claimants, who sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the instant case also that is what is done by respondent Nos.3 and 4 under the impugned award. Further, Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was introduced by way of amendment in the year 1984 for the benefit of the land losers, who failed to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, taking into consideration the illiteracy, ignorance etc., of the citizens of this country who are mostly dependent of agriculture and hail from village back ground. The purpose of introducing such provision is to treat the land owners who failed to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on par with the persons who sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The purpose of introducing such provision is to treat the land owners who failed to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on par with the persons who sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is also settled law that every endeavour should be made to give effect to the intention of the legislature especially in the cases of beneficial provision like the one on hand i.e., Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 16. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharatsing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors. (supra) squarely applies to the cases on hand. No doubt the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the said order was passed in the peculiar facts of the said case. However, the facts of the present cases on hand which are discussed in detail supra are also similar to the facts of the case in Bharatsing S/o Gulabsingh Jakhad & Ors. (supra) and as such this Court is unhesitant to conclude that the official respondents herein are right in extending the benefit of enhanced compensation in terms of order of this Court under the impugned award and proceedings and the original applications submitted by the unofficial respondents under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are rightly considered in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in A.S.No.1634 of 2001, dated 16.12.2013, for payment of enhancement of compensation. 17. In the light of the above, the point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in negative and point No.(iii) is answered in positive, and accordingly this Court does not find any merit in these Writ Petitions and accordingly the same are hereby dismissed. As the enhanced compensation for which unofficial respondent are entitled to is not paid so far by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in the above Writ Petitions for the past about three years, the petitioner-company is directed to deposit the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in all the Writ Petitions, shall stand dismissed.