ORDER : (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. Having heard Mr. K. M. Sheth, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents, it is noteworthy that the present petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed challenging an order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 namely Prant Office (Rural), i.e. the Competent Authority in rejecting the application under Section-28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed on 16.04.2024, by the petitioners. 2. Challenging the order impugned, it was argued by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the only reason given for rejection of the application under Section-28A filed by the petitioners is that the reference court award dated 20.02.2024 in LAR No.8 of 2013, was with regard to an agricultural piece of land, whereas, the land-in-question belonging to the petitioners, is a non-agricultural piece of land. 3. By reading and re-reading of Section-28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was vehemently argued by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the said provision is a beneficial piece of legislation which provides remedy to the landholders to seek compensation of the same amount, which has been awarded to the landholders or persons interested in the land acquisition proceedings where the lands in question are covered by the same notification under Sub-section-(1) of Section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. It is submitted that all such persons interested who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding, that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section-18, are entitled to make a written application to the Collector within time prescribed therein, seeking for re-determination of compensation based on the award passed by the reference court. 4. The submission is that the petitioners’ land is covered by the same notification under Section-4(1), acquiring land with regard to which the reference court award dated 20.02.2024 had been passed. 4. The submission is that the petitioners’ land is covered by the same notification under Section-4(1), acquiring land with regard to which the reference court award dated 20.02.2024 had been passed. The award under Section-11 of the Land Acquisition Act pertains to both agricultural and non- agricultural piece of land covered by the same notification and hence, there was no necessity for the petitioners to file an independent application under Section-18 to agitate the grievance re-determination of the compensation for the piece of land which was non-agricultural on the date of publication of the acquisition notification. 5. It is further submitted the bare fact that in the original award passed under Section-11, the consideration for determination of valuation for the non-agricultural land was based on the valuation of the agricultural land and double the rate of the agricultural land was awarded to the landholders of Non-agricultural land including the petitioners herein, is sufficient to entertain the application seeking for re-determination of valuation of their lands. It was vehemently argued that the petitioners are entitled to the application of the same ratio for computation of the valuation of its land as made by the Collector, while considering the enhancement made by the reference Court under the award dated 20.02.2024, in the proceeding under Section-28A of the Act’ 1894. 6. Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents, however, defends the order impugned with the submission that the nature of two parcels of the lands being distinct, no parity can be claimed to the reference court award dated 20.02.2024 wherein re- determination of compensation has been made with respect to an agricultural piece of land. The contention is that the criteria/parameters for determination of compensation for agricultural land and non-agricultural land would be different and the petitioners cannot claim for applying the same formula or ratio for awarding higher compensation with respect to a non-agricultural land, which was applied by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the original award passed under Section-11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 7. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, we may first advert to the statutory provision contained in Section-28A which reads as under:- “28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. 7. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, we may first advert to the statutory provision contained in Section-28A which reads as under:- “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 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, required 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.” 8. A careful reading of sub-section-(1) of Section-28A indicates that the legislature has provided a remedy to the landholders who have not filed reference under Section-18 to seek re-determination of compensation on the ground of parity, if they are aggrieved by the award of the Collector. A careful reading of sub-section-(1) of Section-28A indicates that the legislature has provided a remedy to the landholders who have not filed reference under Section-18 to seek re-determination of compensation on the ground of parity, if they are aggrieved by the award of the Collector. The language employed in Section-28A that “the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section-4(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector” makes it clear that similar benefits are required to be given to such persons whose lands have been acquired by the same acquisition notification. The question, in the instance case, is not as to whether the petitioners’ land has been acquired under the same notification. The question is as to whether the petitioners can claim the same amount of compensation which has been re- determined by the reference court, with reference to the parcels of land which were agricultural lands at the time of acquisition. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that the lands of the petitioners were non-agricultural piece of lands on the date of publication of the Section-4(1) notification. Resultantly, the valuation of a non-agricultural land as on the date of publication of the acquisition notification was to be determined in the proceedings for making of the award under Section-11 and further in the proceedings under Section-18, if initiated by the aggrieved landholders, by the reference court. 10. A further reading of Section-18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 indicates that the remedy is provided therein to the persons interested/land-holders to agitate the determination made by the Collector, by placing their objections as to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation or the question relating to the entitlement to receive the compensation or apportionment thereof amongst the persons interested. 11. 11. A conjoint reading of Section-18 and Section-28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 indicates that if any person interested in the acquired land is not able to or does not agitate the issue pertaining to the amount of the determination of compensation by the Collector under the award passed under Section-11 by fixing his own reference, and in case the awarded amount is enhanced by the reference court under Section-18 on a reference filed by the landholders with respect to the lands covered by the same notification, other similarly situated persons interested or landholders would be entitled to claim parity seeking re-determination of the compensation awarded to them under the award of the Collector under Section-11, and claim for the same amount of compensation as has been awarded by the reference court to other landholders, who made the reference under Section-18. 12. However, the fact remains that the criteria or the parameters for determination of compensation for an agricultural and a non-agricultural piece of land would be different. The determination made by the Court under Section-18 of the Act, 1894 is an independent exercise wherein re-determination of compensation is made by the Competent Court on consideration of the evidence of the parties. The criteria adopted by the Collector in the award under Section-11 for determination of the valuation of a non- agricultural piece of land is neither binding nor has any persuasive value with respect to the re-determination made by the reference court under Section-18. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Collector in the award under Section-11 has simply multiplied the valuation of the agricultural land by two (02), to decide as to what would be the correct valuation of the non- agricultural land and hence, the same criteria is to be adopted while making re-determination under Section-28A of the Act, 1894 based on the reference court award, is liable to be rejected as misconceived. 14. 14. Further, a perusal of the reference court award dated 20.02.2024 in LAR No.8 of 2013 on record, indicates that amongst various issues, the reference court has framed the issue “Whether compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and unreasonable?” While deciding the said issue, the reference court has considered the evidence regarding potentiality and productivity of the claimants’ land and it was noted that the land acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer were of Jirayat type which were occupied by the claimants therein. The reference court has further noted that there was nothing on record to show that the claimants were getting profits from these lands and that the claimants had not adduced any sale instances which had taken place at that point of time. However, considering the nearness of the lands-in-question to the main city, (which were agricultural land) it was noted that even at the time of acquisition, the entire area was in close vicinity of development. There were business activity at the time of acquisition and many big companies were already located therein. It was also noted that the opponents could not deny that the claimants’ lands were on prime location and road side lands, considering the above aspects, the reference court has compared the Government Jantri for open land as also for industrial open plot, to arrive at the rate of compensation, which is Rs.1,000/- per sq.mtr. for agricultural lands, considering that the Land Acquisition Act being a beneficial legislation, the claimants should be given maximum price. 15. Considering the reasoning given by the reference court in its award based on which the petitioners are claiming higher compensation for their non-agricultural land, it is not possible for us to reach at the conclusion that the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings under Section-28A of the Act, 1894, could have awarded the enhenced compensation based on the determination made by the reference court by multiplying the valuation of agricultural land applying the formula as adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the award under Section-11 of the Act, 1894. The fact remains that for re-determination of compensation in the reference proceedings, the consideration would be required about the nature of the acquired land, its location and the other relevant criterias for re-determination, which may not be applicable equally when two pieces of land are distinct in nature. 16. The fact remains that for re-determination of compensation in the reference proceedings, the consideration would be required about the nature of the acquired land, its location and the other relevant criterias for re-determination, which may not be applicable equally when two pieces of land are distinct in nature. 16. For the aforesaid, heavy reliance placed on the phrase “in all other persons interested in all the others land covered by the same notification under Section-4(1)” would be of no assistance to this Court. We cannot attach any illegality to the order of rejection of the application under Section-28A of the Land Acquisition Act for the reason that parity cannot be given to the petitioners in the matter of re-determination of compensation based on the reference court award dated 20.02.2024 for the simple fact that the said award pertains to a land which was agricultural in nature whereas the petitioners’ land was non-agricultural, at the time of acquisition. 17. All the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to assail the order impugned are, thus, liable to be turned down. The present petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.