G.B. Pattanaik, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Notification under S.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was published on 24-3-1971. The Collector under S.11 passed his award on July 10, 1971. Thereon, the appellant along with others sought and had reference to the Additional District Judge under S. 18. After further enhancement of the award under S. 26, the appellants had not carried the matter in appeal to the High Court under S.54. Some other claimants filed RFA No. 1326/78 wherein the High Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 135/- per sq.yd. Subsequently, after two years, the appellant had filed applications under S. 28 A to the Land Acquisition Officer who in his award in LC case No. 51/91 by order dated May 10, 1993 dismissed the application. On revision filed by the applicants in C.R. No. 2659/93, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by order dated September 21, 1993 dismissed the petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. The only question is : whether the Land Acquisition Officer was right in refusing to award the compensation to the appellants @ Rs. 135/- pr sq.yd. pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in RFA No. 1326/79. Section 28-A(1)of the Act reads thus :

"Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under S. 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under S. 4, sub-sec(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector u/S.18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court :

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded."

4. A reading thereof clearly indicates that after making award under S. 11 by the Collector, if the claimant had not made a written application under S.18 within limitation, but of the claimants arising out of the same notification published under S. 18 within limitation, but one of the claimants arising out of the same notification published under S. 4(1) of the Act, aggrieved against the award made on application and hold the reference under S. 18 and when the civil Court has enhanced the compensation, persons who did not make the applications under S. 18 and received the compensation under S. 31 without protest, Section 28-A(1) gives him right to make a written application under S. 28-A(1) within three months from the date of the award made by the reference Court. Under its proviso, the time taken to obtain its certified copy from the date of making the application to the date of supplying the award shall be excluded. In other words, the aggrieved persons who had received the compensation without protest but did not avail of the remedy of reference under S. 18, if one of the claimants arising from the same notification published under S. 4(1) of the Act, had the benefit of enhanced compensation from the reference Court, the non-applicant has been empowered under S. 28-A(1) to avail the remedy u/S.28-A by an application made within three months from the date of the award of the reference Court to seek enhanced compensation. In this case, admittedly, the appellants have availed the remedy of reference under S. 18 and had the compensation enhanced. Thereafter, they did not pursue appellate remedy under S. 54 to the High Court for further enhanced compensation but some of the claimants pursued the appellate remedy and had further enhanced compensation at Rs. 135/- per sq.yd. Having not availed of the remedy under S. 54, the appellants are not entitled to make an application under S. 28-A(1) to seek the same benefit of the enhanced compensation. The remedy under S. 28-A(1) is available to only when the compensation was enhanced under S. 26 award and judgment in part III of the Act and the same is not available when it was enhanced under S. 54 of the Act. This Court in Scheduled Castes Co-Operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India, 1991(1) SCC 174 had held that the claimants who availed the remedy under S. 18 are not entitled to additional amount under S.28-A when the High Court enhanced the compensation. Similar view was also expressed in Babua Ram v. State of U.P., 1995(2) SCC 689. The appellants are, therefore, not entitled to make the applications under S. 28-A further enhancement. The Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court have rightly refused to grant the relief of enhanced compensation on par with other claimants. The further contention that the appellants are individually discriminated to the payment of same compensation on par with others violating the equality guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution is, no longer res integra. This was concluded against the aggrieved persons by majority judgment of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, 1995(1) SCC 367 and Babu Rams case (1995 AIR SCW 65)(supra).

5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

6. Appeals dismissed.