THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3930 of 2011 ORDER: The Parliament inserted Section 28-A into the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) providing for certain benefits. In case the owners of some of the properties acquired through a particular notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Act and the request of the others for reference was acceded to, Section 28-A of the Act enables the former to seek re-determination of the compensation on par with the one undertaken by the civil Court in the reference. Additional benefit is conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 28- A of the Act to the extent that if re-determination under Section 28- A is not to the satisfaction of an applicant, he can seek reference to a civil Court as though it is a fresh reference under Section 18 of the Act. The lands of the petitioners and several others were acquired by the Government, through a notification, dated 08.11.1990. Award was passed on 24.11.1992. The petitioners, by themselves, did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Act. Others, however, sought for reference. The same was taken up as O.P.No.59 of 1994 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. Through judgment, dated 07.12.2000, the civil Court enhanced the compensation. Claiming the benefit thereunder, the petitioners submitted an application under Section 28-A of the Act. The land Acquisition Officer, respondent No.4 herein, passed an order, dated 04.10.2010 re-determining the compensation. Not satisfied with that, the petitioners sought for reference under sub- section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act by filing an application on 01.11.2010. Their grievance is that no orders have been passed thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In a way, sub-section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act brings about a situation for a second reference under Section 18-A in respect of the same dispute. The question as to whether the petitioners submitted application within the stipulated time and whether their cases fit into that provision, needs to be examined by respondent No.4. This Court cannot express any opinion at this stage. Respondent No.4 can be required to consider the representation made by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to pass orders on the applications, if any made by the petitioners under sub-section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the applications are made and they are found to be in order, reference shall be made. If on the other hand, it is found that either the applications were not made at all or if made, are defective, the said fact shall be intimated to the petitioners within the same period. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.02.2011 kdl