Lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired and award dated 17-9-2000 was passed. The petitioners did not make an application before the Land Acquisition Officer for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, reference was made at the behest of some other persons whose lands were acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. As per judgment dated 29-11-2004 in LAR Nos.32/2001, 59/2001 and 62/2001 and other connected cases, Sub Court, Kasaragod enhanced the land value. Thereupon the petitioners submitted Ext.P-2 application dated 28-2-2005 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated that along with an application a photocopy of the judgment in LAR No.32/2001 and connected cases was produced. Ext.P-3 acknowledgment card evidences receipt of Ext.P-2 application on 1-3-2005. It is further stated that the first respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) returned Ext. P-2 application on the ground that certified copy of the judgment in LAR was not produced. Thereafter the petitioners submitted an application along with certified copy of the judgment on 17-3-2005 which is acknowledged as per Ext.P-4 acknowledgment card dated 18-3-2005. Since the application filed under Section 28A was not disposed of, the petitioners filed W.P.(C).No.9470 of 2006 which was disposed of as per Ext.P-5 judgment directing the first respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act. Thereafter, the first respondent passed Ext. P-6 order rejecting the application under Section 28A holding thus:

"On verification of the LAR 32/2001 and LAR 59/2001 an appeal proposal has already been sent to the District Collector, Kasaragod. In LAR 59/2001, LAA 1501/05 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.

No application u/s 28A of L.A. Act shall be entertained when land acquisition appeal case is pending before a court. Moreover, the application u/s 28A filed by the power of attorney holder and applied certified copy in LAR 69/01 by the Advocate, without Vakalath."

2. One of the reasons stated for rejecting the application is that an appeal is pending against the decision of the reference court in one of the cases and that in respect of two other cases proposals have already been sent to the District Collector for filing appeal. In Baburam v. State of U.P. 1995 (2) S.C.C. 689, Supreme Court held that when an appeal is pending against the decision of the reference court, the Land Acquisition Officer shall keep the application filed under Section 28A pending awaiting the decision of the appellate court. In paragraph 39 of the judgment it was held thus:

"As soon as the award of the civil court is carried in appeal, it becomes obligatory for the Collector to keep the application/applications for redetermination of compensation filed within limitation pending, awaiting decision by the appellate forum and to redetermine the compensation on the basis of the final judgment and decree. Normally the LAO would file the appeal against the enhanced compensation in a decree of either the civil court or the High Court and will know their pendency. In the case of appeal filed by the interested persons, the latter should inform the Collector/LAO of the pendency of appeal or otherwise comes to know of it should keep the applications for redetermination, received under sub-section (1) of Section 28 A within limitation pending, awaiting the decision by the appellate court. Before proceeding with the determination, he should obtain an affidavit from the party making the application under Section 28 A that no appeal against the award made under Section 26 relied upon by him was filed or if had been filed was disposed of by the appellate court and to produce the certified copy of decree and judgment, if already disposed of."

The decision of the Supreme Court was followed in Nani v. District Collector 1998 (1) K.L.T. 705.

3. If an application under Section 28A were to be rejected on th