C.L. Soni, J.

1. Following question arises for our consideration:-

“Whether the application made under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Old Act’) before the award is passed by the Court acting as Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (‘the Legal Service Act’) could be considered by the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award passed by such Court under Section 18 of the Old Act ?

2. As the above common question arises in all the petitions, we have heard the petitions together for final disposal and decided by this common judgment.

3. Facts in nutshell are that the notification under Section 4 of the Old Act was issued on 12.8.1986 covering the lands of the petitioners with other lands of village Kumetha, Taluka Vaghodia, District Vadodara for the purpose of construction of canal for Narmada Irrigation project. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award on 23.12.1986 awarding Rs. 15,000/- (Rs.1.50 ps. per Sq. Mtr.) Some of the landholders covered under the same notification preferred references under Section 18 of the Old Act. Such references were placed before the Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat, consent terms at Exh.14 were submitted with a prayer to pass award as per the consent terms. It appears that having come to know about such consent terms, the petitioners submitted applications under Section 28A of the Old Act on 18.10.2012 to the respondent No.1. Thereafter, on the basis of the consent terms, the Court passed award on 31.10.2012 for agreed higher compensation with other statutory benefits.

4. So far as the applications of the petitioners under Section 28A of the Old Act were concerned, they are rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer-respondent No.1 herein on the ground that the applications are to be made within three months from the date of the award but they are made before the award was passed.

5. We have heard learned advocates for the parties.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Chirag Patel appearing for the petitioners submitted that what is prohibited under the Old Act is of non-consideration of the application under Section 28A of the Old Act if made three months after the date of the award. Mr. Patel submitted that if the applications are made prior to passing of the award under Section 18 of the Old Act, at the best, they deserve non-consideration till the award is made and such applications could be then considered after the award is passed. Mr. Patel submitted that in any case, the petitioners made applications after the consent terms were presented before the Lok Adalat and since the award is made as per the consent terms, the award which was made on 31.10.2012 would relate back to the date of the consent terms. Mr. Patel thus submitted that the applications made on 18.10.2012 by the petitioners were therefore, required to be considered as having been made after the award was passed. Mr. Patel submitted that since the applications were not dealt with till the award was passed, they could be treated as pending applications on the date of the award and were required to be decided on merits. Mr. Patel submitted that the Act could be said to be benevolent Act for the persons whose lands are acquired inasmuch as whatever the benefits intended by the legislature should be made available without raising technical objection, especially when it is not the case that the petitioners had made applications under Section 28A three months after the award was made by the Lok Adalat. He thus urged to direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the applications of the petitioners on their own merits and decide the same in accordance with law without raising objection as regards maintainability of such applications.

7. As against the above arguments, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rutvij Oza appearing for the respondents submitted that the applicants had accepted the award and chosen not to make r