Vijay Bishnoi, J.

These writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the judgments dated 19.09.2012 and 21.12.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Authority), Bhilwara (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Land Acquisition Officer'), whereby the applications filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Land Acquisition Act') has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the cases are that the acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State Government for acquiring the land measuring 886.7 Bighas situated in villages Biliayakalan, Swaropganj and Guwardi of Tehsil and District Bhilwara for the purpose of establishment of Growth Centre, Hamirgarh for industrial development.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of acquisition proceedings. After issuance of notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and ultimately the Land Acquisition Officer passed the final award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 04.04.1998. The agriculture lands of the petitioners were acquired in the said acquisition proceedings.

4. Some of the land holders, whose lands were acquired, preferred references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Judge, Bhilwara and the said references were decided by judgment dated 23.10.2009, whereby the District Judge, Bhilwara enhanced the compensation for the land acquired. After passing of the Court award dated 23.10.2009, the petitioners moved applications before the Land Acquisition Officer under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. The said applications were dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide impugned judgments solely on the ground that the petitioners had not applied for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the final award passed by it and, therefore, their applications, preferred under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, are liable to be rejected. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgments the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act permits all the persons interested to move application for re-determination of amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court, notwithstanding the fact that they have not made any application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the impugned judgments without even looking into the provisions of section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and the matters are required to be remanded to the Land Acquisition Officer for deciding the applications, preferred by the applicants under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, afresh.

6. Despite service of notices, no reply is filed on behalf of the respondents, however, the counsel appearing for the respondent- RIICO has opposed all the writ petitions and contended that some of the applications, preferred by the persons interested under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, are after the limitation and, therefore, they are not liable to be entertained.

In response to the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that some of the petitioners, who did not file applications under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act within prescribed limitation, have already filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay, however, the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered those applications and dismissed the applications filed under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.

7. Heard learned counsel