Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

1. The petitioning Transport Corporation, a beneficiary of the compulsory acquisition of lands in question, has called into question the order, dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure-G) passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing the application filed by the private respondents under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to 'the said Act') by re-determining the market value of the land at Rs. 8,000/- per gunta.

2. Sri. V.P. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent Assistant Commissioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded Rs. 18,000/- per acre and that aggrieved by the same, some land-owners sought the reference under Section 18 of the said Act. He submits that the private respondents herein had not sought the reference. In the reference proceedings of other land-owners, the market value was raised to Rs. 2,000/- per gunta by the Reference Court by its award, dated 30.09.2002. He submits that as the market value was raised upwards without making the beneficiary of the acquisition a party, it (beneficiary) filed W.P. No. 35006/2004. It came to be disposed of by this Court, by its order, dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure-R1) by remanding the matter to the Reference Court for the re-determination of the market value after affording adequate opportunities to the beneficiary. On the matter being remanded and on holding the re-enquiry, the Reference Court raised the market value to Rs. 8,000/- per gunta by its award, dated 20.12.2008. The determination of the market value at Rs. 8,000/- was confirmed in the appeal.

3. Sri. V.P. Kulkarni raises two contentions. When the contesting respondents herein have not made Section 28-A application pursuant to the Reference Court's first award, dated 30.09.2002, they are not entitled to maintain 28-A application pursuant to the Reference Court's second award, dated 20.12.2008 and its confirmation by the Appellate Court. The second contention urged by Sri. V.P. Kulkarni is that Section 28-A application is not signed by all the contesting respondents. He submits that the respondent No. 19 alone has signed the said application claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the other contesting respondents. He submits that the power of attorney document itself is not produced.

4. Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the SLAO and Sriyuths P.H. Gothkindi and V.G. Patil, learned advocates appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 35 would however support the impugned order. Sri. P.H. Gothkindi and Sri. V.G. Patil submit that the general power of attorney document was indeed produced before the first respondent SLAO.

5. The only question that falls for my consideration is whether Section 28-A application ought to have been dismissed on the ground that it is not filed within three months from the date of the Reference Court's first award dated 30.9.2002.

6. To answer this question, advertence has to be made to the provisions contained in Section 28-A of the said Act. They are extracted herein below:-

"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 11.1 the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4.1 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."

7. A perusal of the aforesaid extracted provisions reveals that under Section 28-A of the said Act, the application