Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Question involved in this writ petition is, that when compensation awarded in proceedings under Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) is received by a person interested, like petitioner without protest, can he maintain the petition under Section 28-A of the Act or not. Admitted facts of this case are that the Land Acquisition Collector made an award and pronounced it on 17.7.1973. Annexure P-l attached by the petitioner reveals that compensation was received without protest. Thereafter reference under Section 18 was cLalmed by the petitioner. This was rejected on 3rd February, 1976. Petitioner did not question this order.

2. However, vide Annexure P-2 he submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Collector, Bias Dam Project, at Talwara. This was for determination of award under Section 28-A of the Act. Basis for cLalming redetermination by the petitioner was the award given by the Additional District Judge on 24.11.1987. Amongst other things in paragraph 5 of this application rates awarded by the Additional District Judge were also mentioned. And it was also pleaded that notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of Tikka Katnaur Khas as well as regarding her land was the same.

3. By means of impugned order passed on this application for re-determination, it was held by the respondent, that the application was not maintainable in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Review Petition No. 364-65 of 1992, Civil Appeal No. 2320-21 of 1991, Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and another, on 10th March, 1995.

4. In this petition reliance is being placed on behalf of the petitioner on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 796 of 1992, Bansi Lal v. L.A.C. Bias Dam Project, decided on 28.12.1992. Thus, the petitioner has prayed that Annexure P-2 may be quashed and direction may be issued to the respondent to redetermine the compensation and pay the same to her as per law.

5. Before proceeding further in this case, it may be noted that Bishanu alias Bishan Dass late husband of the petitioner was the person who had claimed the reference vide Annexure P-l, under Section 18 of the Act. It appears that after his death Annexure P-2, the application for re-determination was filed as noted hereinabove by the petitioner. This application has been filed by Lalita Devi-petitioner, however, it is mentioned in it that the deceased has other legal representatives namely three daughters Om Piari Devi, Sundra Devi and Aruna- Devi.

6. Respondent when put to notice has tried to justify the order contained in Annexure P-2. As according to it, reference under Section 18 supra stood rejected vide Annexure P-l and looking to the decision of Supreme Court referred to in the impugned rejection order Annexure P-2, it suffers from no infirmity.

7. This matter is no more res-integra in view of the Constitution Bench decision by Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi and others, and other connected cases, in 2002 AIR SCW 3755. What was held and is relevant in the context is that where a person like petitioner who had received the awarded compensation without protest and also his having not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act, Supreme Court held him to be a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28-A supra.

8. Para from this judgment which is relevant in the context of present writ petition is extracted hereinbelow:— "Before we embark upon an inquiry as to what would be the correct interpretation of Section 28-A, we think it appropriate to bear in mind certain basic principles of interpretation of statute. The rule stated by Tindal, CJ. in Sussex Peerage Case, (1844) 11 Cl and F 85, still holds the field. The aforesaid rule is to the effect : "If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves do alone in such cases be