JUDGMENT : The applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the LA Act' for short) to an award passed under Section 11(2) of the said Act falls for consideration in this writ petition. 2. The property of the petitioner, having an extent of3.4560 Hectares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.187/1 of Veiloor Village, was acquired under the LA Act for establishing a Life Science Park for the 5 th respondent, an instrumentality of the State. The compensation was fixed after negotiation, and the award in LAC No. 36/2010 was passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act for a sum of Rs.15,33,49,804/-. The petitioner received the compensation amount on 7/4/2011. Another 38 cents of land belonging to the petitioner comprised in the same notification was also acquired, and compensation was awarded to her in LAC No.35/2010. At the instance of the petitioner, reference for enhanced compensation for the said 38 cents of land was made to the Authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act') and the Authority in LAR No.21/2017 passed Ext. P15 award allowing enhanced compensation. The petitioner preferred Ext. P16 application under Section 28A of the LA Act before the 4 th respondent for redetermination of the compensation awarded in LAC No.36/2010 based on Ext. P15 award passed in LAR No.21/2017. The 4 th respondent rejected the claim for enhanced compensation as per Ext.P17 order. The writ petition has been filed challenging the said order. 3. According to the petitioner, she accepted the award in LAC No.36/2010 passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on the specific condition that she is eligible for enhanced compensation, if any, paid to any other similar land covered by the same notification and hence she is entitled to get enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the LA Act based on Ext. P15 award passed by the Authority. P15 award passed by the Authority. It is alleged that in Ext.P3 affidavit filed by the petitioner before the 4 th respondent, she expressed her willingness for a settlement on an agreed price reserving her right to claim enhanced compensation in the event of any other land covered by the same notification is paid a higher rate of compensation and it was without prejudice to her right for enhanced compensation stated in Ext.P3 that she received the compensation awarded in LAC No.36/2010. 4. The 4 th and 5 th respondents filed separate counter affidavits refuting the allegations in the writ petition. In the statement filed by the 4 th respondent, it is contended that the compensation was fixed for the acquired land of the petitioner in LAC No.36/2010 on the basis of negotiation and the petitioner executed agreement in Form 10(a) prescribed under the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 which contains a specific condition that the owner and interested party shall not claim any amount in addition to the amount agreed upon as compensation and the petitioner accepted it without any protest. It is further contended that in the award, there is no condition that the petitioner is eligible for enhanced compensation for any reason and hence, she cannot make a claim for enhanced compensation invoking Section 28A of the LA Act. It is also contended that Ext.P3 affidavit has no legal sanctity since the same was submitted much before the date of execution of the 10(a) agreement. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent, it is contended that the award in LAC No.36/2010 was passed by the 4 th respondent under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on the basis of Ext.R5(b) agreement executed by the petitioner and once an award is passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on the basis of the agreement in Form 10(a) and accepted by the landowner, it is final and cannot be reopened. 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavits opposing the contentions in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 4 and 5 and reiterating the averments in the writ petition. 6. I have heard the petitioner, Smt. Beena Sarasan, who appeared in person, Sri. Y. Jafar Khan, the learned Senior Government Pleader, and Sri. P.U. Shailajan, the learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent. 7. 6. I have heard the petitioner, Smt. Beena Sarasan, who appeared in person, Sri. Y. Jafar Khan, the learned Senior Government Pleader, and Sri. P.U. Shailajan, the learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent. 7. The 4 th respondent passed the award in LAC No.36/2010 under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on 5/3/2011. The petitioner received the compensation amount of Rs.15,33,49,804/- on 7/4/2011. 3.7080 Hectares of land belonging to the petitioner's sister and comprised in the same notification was acquired by the Government, and an award under Section 11(2) of the LA Act was passed on 3/6/2017. Ext.P10 is the said award. The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation before the 4 th respondent claiming enhanced compensation for her land acquired at the same rate of compensation awarded in Ext.P10. The 4 th respondent rejected Ext.P11 as per Ext.P12 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P12 order before this court in WP(C) No.3012/2018. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that since the petitioner has already claimed enhancement of compensation under Section 28 of the LA Act vide Ext.P11 representation and it was rejected, the petitioner cannot again claim enhancement of compensation invoking Section 28A of the LA Act based on Ext.P15 award. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that since the award was passed on negotiation under Section 11(2) of the LA Act and Ext.R5(b) settlement agreement has been executed, the petitioner is estopped and precluded from maintaining an application in terms of Section 28A of the LA Act. Refuting the said contention, the petitioner submitted that she accepted the award under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on a specific condition that she is eligible for enhanced compensation, if any, paid to other similar land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. 8. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 provides a legal framework for acquiring land for public purposes and compensating landowners. Section 11(1) is a compulsory award determined by the Collector after due process, allowing for legal challenges and redetermination. Section 11(2) is a consent award, where compensation is settled amicably. Under Section 11(1), the Collector determines the compensation for the acquired land based on factors like market value, damages, and incidental costs. The award is made after considering the objections from landowners and conducting necessary inquiries. It forms the basis for payment unless challenged. Section 11(2) is a consent award, where compensation is settled amicably. Under Section 11(1), the Collector determines the compensation for the acquired land based on factors like market value, damages, and incidental costs. The award is made after considering the objections from landowners and conducting necessary inquiries. It forms the basis for payment unless challenged. If a landowner is dissatisfied with the compensation under Section 11(1) and received it under protest, he can seek a reference to the Court under Section 18 within the prescribed time. The Court then reassesses and may enhance the compensation based on evidence and legal principles. Section 11(2) allows for a negotiated settlement between the landowner and the Government. If both parties agree on the compensation amount, the Collector records an award based on mutual consent. Once agreed, this compensation is final. Section 28A benefits landowners who did not seek a reference under Section 18. If the Court, on reference under Section 18, enhances compensation for any land acquired under the same notification, others whose land were acquired under the same process can apply for redetermination of their compensation. 9. The contention of the respondents that in view of Ext.P12 order rejecting Ext.P11 representation submitted by the petitioner claiming enhanced compensation, Ext.P16 is not maintainable cannot be sustained. A plain reading of Section 28A of the LA Act makes it clear that the redetermination of compensation has to be done by the Collector on the basis of the compensation awarded by the Court in the reference under Section 18 of the LA Act and an application in that behalf has to be made to the Collector within thirty days from the date of the award. Ext.P11 representation was not made based on the compensation awarded by the Court in the reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. On the other hand, Ext.P11 representation was made based on Ext.P10 award passed by the Collector under Section 11(2) of the LA Act. Ext.P11 is only a representation requesting to grant enhanced compensation based on Ext.P10 award; it is not an application for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. 10. On the other hand, Ext.P11 representation was made based on Ext.P10 award passed by the Collector under Section 11(2) of the LA Act. Ext.P11 is only a representation requesting to grant enhanced compensation based on Ext.P10 award; it is not an application for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. 10. As stated already, the definite case of the petitioner is that she accepted the award under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on a specific condition that she is entitled to enhanced compensation if any paid to any other similar land covered by the same notification and that she received the compensation without prejudice to her right to claim for enhanced compensation. Exts.P3 and P9 are the crucial documents relied on by the petitioner to substantiate the said plea. According to the petitioner, while the negotiation was in progress, the 3 rd and 4 th respondents directed her to file an affidavit in a format given by them. Accordingly, she filed Ext.P3 affidavit dated 2/2/2011 before the 4 th respondent. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, the petitioner has specifically stated that she reserves her right to claim enhancement under Section 28 of the LA Act, notwithstanding the agreement, if any enhancement is awarded in respect of the acquisition under the same notification. Exts.P3(a), P3(b) and P3(c) are copies of pages 151, 159 and 161 of the records of the Special Tahsildar relating to LAC No.36/2010. A perusal of the same would show that reference is made in Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) to Ext.P3 affidavit filed by the petitioner. Thus, it is evident that Ext.P3 affidavit was included in the draft of the award. The records would further show that even after receiving the compensation, the petitioner was issuing communications to the 3 rd and 4 th respondents regarding the correctness of the compensation offered and received. On 27/10/2011, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation to the Principal Secretary, Industries Department which inter alia referred to the specific condition based on which the acquired land was surrendered. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, by his letter dated 28/10/2011 addressed to the 3 rd respondent (Ext.P9), confirmed that the petitioner surrendered her land on condition that if others who are covered by the same notification get higher compensation, she should also get it. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, by his letter dated 28/10/2011 addressed to the 3 rd respondent (Ext.P9), confirmed that the petitioner surrendered her land on condition that if others who are covered by the same notification get higher compensation, she should also get it. It is specifically stated in the said letter that the petitioner should not lose the enhanced compensation for the sole reason that she co-operated with the Government land acquisition. This evidence and circumstances clearly establish that the petitioner surrendered the land and accepted the award under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on the condition mentioned in Ext.P3 affidavit that she is eligible for enhanced compensation if any paid to any other similar land covered by the same notification and the said condition was accepted by the respondent. 11. The learned Government Pleader, as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 5 th respondent brought my attention to clause No. (3) of Ext. R5(b) agreement which says that the owner and the interested party shall not claim any amount in addition to the amount agreed upon as compensation and shall accept the compensation without any protest. Relying on the said clause it is submitted that the petitioner is precluded from invoking Section 28A. The said clause finds a place on page No.2 of the agreement. In answer to the above submission, the petitioner submitted that she had signed only the last page of Ext.P13 [R5(b)], and the remaining pages were not shown to her. According to the petitioner, Form, 10(a), forming part of Ext.P13, which contains the condition being referred to by the 4 th respondent (Clause 3), was not part of the documents that were provided to her and was only subsequently added without her knowledge. In support of the said submission, she pointed out that page No.2 of Ext. P13 [R5(b]), which contains Clause (3) was not signed by her or the District Collector. It is pertinent to note in this connection that the award in the name of the petitioner and the award in the name of the sister of the petitioner were both under Section 11(2) of the LA Act. Ext.P23 is the true copy of Form 10(a) executed by the sister of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note in this connection that the award in the name of the petitioner and the award in the name of the sister of the petitioner were both under Section 11(2) of the LA Act. Ext.P23 is the true copy of Form 10(a) executed by the sister of the petitioner. Ext.P23 agreement contains the signature of the sister of the petitioner on all the pages, whereas Ext.P13 contains the signature of the petitioner only on the last page. All these facts and circumstances suggest that the petitioner participated in the negotiation making her position very clear that it was without prejudice to the claim for enhanced compensation in the event of any other land involved in the same notification being awarded enhanced compensation. Then, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether a person who has received the compensation under protest pursuant to an award passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act and has not filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 is “a person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 28A. To answer the question, it is profitable to extract Section 28A, which reads thus: “28-A. 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 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. (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.” 12. A reading of the above provision would show that a person who is aggrieved by the award of the Collector is entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 28A for redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court on reference under Section 18 in respect of land under the same notification notwithstanding the fact that he did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18.Section 28A does not make any distinction between the award passed under Section 11(1) or 11(2). It only says the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification and who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector can invoke the provision. Thus, if a person is aggrieved by the award of the Collector, be it under Section 11(1) or 11(2), he is entitled to invoke Section 28A. 13. The word "person interested" finds a place in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 11 and Section 18 of the LA Act. However, in Section 28A, besides the word "persons interested", the word "aggrieved" are employed. Though the word "aggrieved" has not been defined in the LA Act, the word "person interested" has been defined under sub-clause (b) of Section 3. As per the definition assigned to "person interested", it includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act, and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land. The words "person interested" in all other land and "aggrieved" by the award of the Collector employed in Section 28A are crucial. The words "person interested" in all other land and "aggrieved" by the award of the Collector employed in Section 28A are crucial. Merely being an interested person would not ipso facto cloth the landowner for redetermination of the compensation under Section 28A as, along with it, he should be "aggrieved" also. 14. True, normally, when a negotiated award is passed based on Form 10(a) agreement under Section 11(2), the person in whose favour the award is passed cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by the award. But in a case where a person accepted the award passed under Section 11(2) under protest or reserving his right to claim enhanced compensation in the event enhanced compensation is paid to any other land covered by the same notification under reference order of the Court under Section 18, he is definitely a person aggrieved and is entitled to invoke Section 28A. A claimant who receives compensation under protest but makes no application under Section 18, becomes a person aggrieved under Section 28A of the Act and is entitled to seek redetermination for higher compensation. Examining the meaning of the word “person aggrieved” employed in Section 28A, the Supreme Court in Babua Ram and Others v. State of U.P. and Another [ (1995) 2 SCC 689 ] held that “the person aggrieved must, therefore, be one who has suffered a legal grievance because of a decision pronounced by Civil Court giving higher compensation for the acquired lands similar to his own while he is denied of such higher compensation for his land because of operation of Section 18 read with Section 31 of the Act resulting in affectation of his pecuniary interest in his acquired land directly and adversely by that award of the Collector made under Section 11. As such, he becomes an aggrieved person entitled to avail of the right and remedy conferred upon him under Section 28A(1) to make good his denied right to receive compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector/L.A.O”. As such, he becomes an aggrieved person entitled to avail of the right and remedy conferred upon him under Section 28A(1) to make good his denied right to receive compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector/L.A.O”. In Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2003 KHC 221) it was held that if a person has not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he would be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28A and would be entitled to make an application when some other land owner's application for reference is answered by the reference court. Since the petitioner accepted the award without prejudice to her right to enhanced compensation, she is entitled to make an application under Section 28A based on Ext.P15 reference answered by the Authority. For these reasons, I hold that that the dismissal of Ext.P16 application vide Ext.P17 order cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P17 is set aside. The 4 th respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P16 on merits and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition stands disposed of as above.