K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.

1. Heard. Admitted. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 3.

2. Reliefs sought for in these Writ Petitions are identical. Properties belonging to the petitioners were acquired for a public purpose. They were given compensation also. They did not file any application under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhanced compensation. In both these cases petitioners filed applications under S.28A of the Act claiming re-determination of the compensation already awarded. The request of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 23773 of 2007 was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the land acquired from the petitioners in that Writ Petition and the land covered by LAR No. 60 of 1995 are different categories of lands. In Writ Petition No. 28743 of 2007, the reasons for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner are: (1) the first reference application is a time barred application (Filed after a period of 6 years), (2) an OP (OP No. 12242/97) is pending before the Honourable High Court on the same matter and (3) the 2nd reference application is not admissible.

3. The petitioners filed applications under S.28A