P.R. Raman, J.

In all these appeals arise common question.

2. The claimants in these appeals preferred applications under Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Collector claiming that they are entitled for enhancement of compensation based on the judgment in L.A.R. 5 of 1986 of the Sub Court, Palakkad. It was contended that the appellants' cases also are similar to that of the claimant in L.A.R. 5 of 1986.

3. The District Collector entertained the applications but refused to grant any relief. The applications were dismissed holding that the appellants are not entitled for any compensation as according to the District Collector, they failed to establish that the lands in question are similar to the land involved in L.A.R. 5 of 1986. The applications were referred to the Sub Court, Palakkad at the instance of the appellants as contemplated under Sec. 28 A of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act.

4. By a common judgment, all these Land Acquisition References were disposed of by the Sub Court, without determining the question as to whether the properties in question are similar to the land involved in L.A.R. 5 of 1986, but holding that the applications filed by the appellants before the District Collector itself were barred by limitation. Going by the date of the award in L.A.R. 5 of 1986, it being 5.1.1989 - the court below held that the applications filed on 22.5.1989 and 23.5.1989 were beyond three months prescribed under the Act and hence dismissed the references against which the present appeals are filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the applications were entertained by the District Collector and rejected them on the ground that the properties are not similar to the property involved in L.A.R. 5 of 1986, the court below could only consider that question in accordance with law. According to him, the court cannot re-open the question as to whether the applications filed are within time or not. He placed reliance on the decisions of this court rendered while interpreting Sec. 18 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. In Special Tahsildar (L.A.) v. Kallu (2000(3) KLT 71) a Division Bench of this Court considered the question as to whether a reference application filed under Sec. 18(2) is within the time as contemplated by the Section is a matter for the District Collector and not for the reference court to consider. In that case, the reference application was made to the District Collector which was dismissed as time barred. An original petition was filed before this court raising the question as to whether the application was time barred or not should be considered by the District court or the reference court. The original petition was allowed holding that it is for the reference court to consider the question of limitation as well, against which a writ appeal was filed by the State. The Division Bench after considering the provision and other decisions, held that only if there is a valid application made to the district collector should there be a valid reference. In that view, when application is filed before the District collector, it is for him to consider whether the application is filed within time and only if the application is filed within time, the further question of referring to the reference court for considering the claim for enhancement should arise. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the district Collector having entertained the applications under Sec. 28A it was no more open to the reference court to consider that question. The decision cited by the learned counsel in no way support the contention raised here. Under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act if the party is aggrieved by the award passed by the awarding officer and dissatisified with the compensation awarded, he can seek a reference of the question to the court for which an application has to be filed before the District Collector. As per Sec. 18, the application has to state the grounds o