The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, as specified by the Supreme Court.

Koshy, J.

Petitioner filed an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as' the act) and by Ext. P1 judgment in O.P. No. 2501 of 1995 this Court directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3 representation in that original petition filed under Section 28A of the Act. Now by Ext. P2, application was rejected on the ground that Section 28 A application can be filed only if the award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after 30-4-1982 and in the petitioner's case award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 25-9-1980. Section 28A was introduced by Section 19 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 with effect from 24-9-1984. It is prospective in operation. In other words. if award under Section 26 is passed prior to 24-9-1984, application under Section 28A cannot be made.

2. It was clearly held by the Supreme Court in Babua Ram and others v. State of U.P. and another ((1995) 2 SCC 689) that it is the date of passing of the award by the reference court that is important. Even if award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 is before 24-9-1984, when compensation is accorded in respect of lands covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) by a Court under Section 26, after 24-9-1984. interested persons can file application under Section 28A. Date of notification under Section 4(1) or date of award under Section 11 is not at all important. It is the date of passing of the award by the reference court under Section 28A. But in Babua Ram's case and in Union of India v. Karnail Singh ((1995) 2 SCC 728) it was held that limitation of three months for making application for redetermination of compensation must be computed from the date of earliest award of reference court made under Section 26. This ruling in so far as limitation is concerned was overruled by a three member Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari ((1995) 2 SCC 736) and held that the benefit of redetermination of the amount of compensation under Section 28 A can be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards that has been made by the court after the coming into force of Section 28 A, provided the applicant seeking such benefit makes the application under Section 28A within the prescribed period of three months from the date of award on the basis of which redetermination is sought.

3. In the decision reported in (1995) 2 SCC 736, Apex Court had clearly laid down six conditions for making an application under Section 28A of the Act:

"(1) An award has been made by the court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28-A;

(ii) By the said award the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under S.11 has been allowed to the applicant in that reference;

(iii) The person moving the application under Section 28-A is interested in other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the said award relates;

(iv) The person moving the application did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18;

(v) The application is moved within three months from the date of the award on the basis of which the redetermination of amount of compensation is sought; and

(vi) Only one application can be moved under Section 28A for redetermination of compensation by an applicant;"

4. The question whether each successive awards or judgment and decree would give cause of section to file fresh application under Section 28-A and question whether award of court made 'under Section 26 or reference under Section 18 would also include judgment and decree of the appellate Court under Section 54 were referred to by a larger Bench by the decision in J.A.G.D.R. Rodrigueses v. Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1996 SC 709), in view of the conflicting views expressed in the decision in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari ((1995) 2 SCC 736) with the earlier decisions. In this case, petitioners is not relying on any su