1. The appellants land was acquired by a notification dated October 17, 1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the). The Collector gave the award dated May 14, 1981 fixing the compensation at Rs 18, 000 and Rs 16, 000 per acre for the land situated in villages Mand and Ladhowal respectively. The appellant did not seek any reference under Section 18 of thewithin the time limit specified under the. But the other claimants whose lands have been acquired under the same notification made the reference to the Addl. District Judge who by his award dated February 6, 1984 enhanced the compensation to Rs 81, 312 and Rs 77, 440 respectively for the lands situated in the above two villages. It appears that the High Court thereafter affirmed the award of the Addl. District Judge on October 9, 1986. It is clear from the order (Annexure R-1) dated October 30, 1984 made by the Land Acquisition Collector that the appellant not being satisfied with the amount of compensation filed a petition under Section 18 of theon March 15, 1984 which was received by the Collector on March 21, 1984 requesting for reference. But the Collector dismissal the application as being time-barred. While it is so, the appellant after the confirmation of the judgment of the Addl. District Judge by the High Court has approached the Collector with an application under Section 28-A of thefor redetermination of the compensation. But this application has been dismissed by the Collector on the ground that the appellant had not preferred the application within three months from the date of the award by the District Judge from February 6, 1984.

2. Be that as it may, when the Land Acquisition Collector dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 18 of theon October 13, 1984, the amendment Section 28- A has come into force w.e.f. September 1984. Therefore, having regard to the object and reasons of the amended section to the effect that this Section 28- A was introduced with the avowed object of relieving the considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties who are inarticulate and poor people and are unable to approach the court for reference under Section 18 of thewhich is usually exercised by the landlords comparatively affluent landlords, the Collector ought to have extended the benefit of the benevolent provision of Section 28- A by treating the application of the applicant dated March 15, 1984 which was pending before him even after Section 28- A came into force as one filed under Section 28- A and dispose of the same on the ground that the appellant had filed a petition within three months from the date of the award of the Addl. District Judge which was given on February 6, 1984 as mentioned supra3. Under these circumstances, we having regard to the special and peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, set aside the orders of the Collector and the High Court and remand the matter to the file of the Land Acquisition Collector with the direction that the application dated March 15, 1984 filed by the appellant be treated as one under Section 28-A of theand the same be disposed of in accordance with the law.
3. The appeal is disposed of.