Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The Union of India has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 13.9.1990 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar in proceedings under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as -the Act-), re-determining the compensation payable to the land owners on the basis of the award dated 28.02.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot. 2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondent- Gurdial Singh had sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide its award dated 2.6.1979 partly enhanced the compensation. The respondent remained satisfied with the award and did not file any Regular First Appeal against the same in this Court. Later on, the reference of some of the land owners from the same acquisition were decided by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide award dated 28.2.1989, where by more compensation was awarded to those land owners. On the basis of the said award, the compensation was redetermined by the Land Acquisition Collector by the impugned order. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent-Gurdial Singh had already sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and after decision of the said reference by the Additional District Judge, he was not competent to move an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of the compensation on the basis of the subsequent award made by the Civil Court on the references of some other land owners, particularly when he did not challenge the award of the reference Court by filing Regular First Appeal before this Court. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736, wherein it was laid down that when a land owner had sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, he is not entitled for making an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re- determination on the basis of the subsequent award. 4. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that against the re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, the petitioner has a remedy of seeking reference under sub-Section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act. In view of the said alternative remedy, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the said order is not maintainable. Secondly, learned counsel argued that on separate applications filed by two land owners under Section 28-A of the Act (one by the petitioner and the other by Udham Singh etc.), the Land Acquisition Collector re-determined the compensation vide award dated 13.9.1990. In both the cases, land owners earlier sought references under Section 18 of the Act and got decided those references, and against both the orders, the Union of India filed two writ petitions, i.e. C.W.P. No. 1738 of 1992 and the instant petition. Both the petitions were admitted simultaneously. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record the copy of the order dated 5.5.2009 passed in C.W.P. No. 1738 of 1992, whereby the writ petition filed by the said petitioner against the similar order was dismissed by this Court while passing the following order -- "2. Land of the contesting respondents was acquired in pursuance of notifications dated 28.8.1974 under section 4 and dated 5.10.1974 under section 6 of the Act. The contesting respondents preferred references under section 18 of the Act, which were decided by the Reference Court- However, the said contesting respondents did not file any appeal against the order of the Reference Court. Appeal was filed by the other aggrieved parties in which compensation was enhanced by this Court. Thereafter, the contesting respondents filed applications under Section 28-A of the Act to seek more compensation, as awarded by this Court to other land owner and by the Reference Court following the said order of this Court. 3. Contention raised in this petition is that reference under section 18 of the Act having already been referred by the contesting respondents, their application under section 28 of the Act was not maintainable, in view of law laid down by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Pradeep Kumari and others, (1995) 2 SCC 736- AIR 1995 SC 2259. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents does not dispute the legal position but submits that there is a gross delay in filing the writ petition and having regard to the fact that the land owners have only been given compensation at par with other land owners, even though technically application under section 28-A may not have been maintainable, this Court may not interfere with the order. He relied upon order passed by another Division Bench of this Court in C. W.P. No. 13686 of 1997 (Union of India v. Gurmail Singh and others) decided on 15.9.1997, against which SLP was dismissed by the Hon-ble Supreme Court on 13.7.1998 being SLP (C) No. 4425 of 1998. He states that in that case, reference under section 18 of the Act had not been preferred and this Court dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay. 5. Though, we are of the view that the impugned order is erroneous in entertaining application under section 28-A of the Act after reference had already been preferred earlier having regard to the long delay in filing the writ petition for which there is no valid explanation, we do not find any ground to upset the impugned order." It is admitted position that the aforesaid decision has become final as Union of India has not filed any appeal against the same. 5 Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in view of the aforesaid decision in exactly similar case and against the order which was passed in case of co-land owners, the instant writ petition should also be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the prayer by stating that in that case the delay in filing the writ petition could not be explained, but in the instant petition the petitioner has explained the delay by filing reply to the application filed by the respondents, by filing CM. No. 19530 of 2009. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that, the instant writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the same reasoning as given in C.W.P. No. 1738 of 1992. The delay as well as facts and circumstances in both the petitions are exactly the same. No. 19530 of 2009. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that, the instant writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the same reasoning as given in C.W.P. No. 1738 of 1992. The delay as well as facts and circumstances in both the petitions are exactly the same. The same explanation was available for the delay in the aforesaid case, but when the same was not accepted in the identical case, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted by adopting a different reasoning. Not only on the ground of delay, the writ petition is not liable to be entertained, but in our opinion, against the order of re-determination under Section 28-A of the Act, remedy of writ is also not available. Sub-section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act is reproduced below for facility of reference -- "28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. (1) xx xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx xx (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18." Thus, in our opinion, if an award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector under sub-Section (2) of Section 28-A, and if the petitioner is not accepting the said award, then in view of sub-Section (3) of Section 28-A of the Act, the only remedy available to it is to seek a reference against the said award under Section 18 of the Act. 7 In view of the above, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.