By the Court.—The issue that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether a person interested, who has not accepted the award made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), and has filed an application before the Collector under Section 18 of the Act, can file an application under Section 28-A of the Act for redetermination of the amount of compensation.

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award under Section 11 of the Act on 5 July 1978. Mokham, predecessor in interest of petitioner No. 1-Dheer Singh had filed an application under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court by award dated 30 August 1986 in LAR No. 31 of 1979 partly enhanced the amount of compensation. First Appeal (Defective) No. 19 of 1987 was filed by Mokham for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 22 October 2002 for the reason that the deficiency in Court fees had not been made good. The restoration application alongwith delay condonation and substitution applications were also rejected on 22 May 2013. The Special Leave to Appeal to assail the said order dated 22 May 2013 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9 September 2013. The application for recalling the orders dated 22 October 2002 and 22 May 2013 has also been rejected by the High Court on 22 May 2014.

3. However, certain tenure holders, whose lands had been acquired by the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, had also filed First Appeals against the award made by the Reference Court. These First Appeals were decided on 3 December 2014 and the amount of compensation was increased.

4. An application under Section 28-A of the Act was then filed by the petitioners on 30 April 2016 which is said to have been received in the office on 3 May 2016. The petitioners claimed the same amount of compensation as was awarded to the tenure holders who had filed First Appeals in which the High Court had enhanced the compensation by judgment dated 3 December 2014. This application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Greater Noida (ADM) by order dated 23 June 2016 holding that the application itself was not maintainable since the father of petitioner No. 1 Mokham had earlier filed an application (LAR No. 31/1979 Mokham v. State of U.P.) under Section 18 of the Act which had been decided on 30 August 1986 and the amount of compensation had been partly enhanced.

Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the view taken by the ADM that the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act was not maintainable because the remedy under Section 18 of the Act had earlier been invoked by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners by filing a reference application is not correct. It is his submission that Section 28-A of the Act does not contemplate that if a reference application is filed under Section 18 of the Act, a tenure holder cannot invoke the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. The submission of learned counsel is that since the First Appeal filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had not been decided on merits but had been dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC for the reason that the deficiency in Court fees had not been made good, the application filed under Section 28-A of the Act would be maintainable.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel appearing for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority have, however, submitted that the ADM committed no illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners as the remedy available under Section 18 of the Act had earlier been invoked by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and the reference had been decided on merits.

5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel