JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.:- This petition has been filed by the Improvement Trust against award of the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the 1894 Act’). 2. Land of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was acquired under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, ‘the 1922 Act’). The Collector vide award dated 27.1.1977 awarded compensation ranging from Rs.156/- to Rs.407/- per marla. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 preferred reference to the Land Acquisition Tribunal on which compensation was enhanced in the range of Rs.300/- to Rs.800/- per marla vide award dated 2.5.1985. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 thereafter filed an application under section 28-A of the 1894 Act seeking re-determination of compensation on the basis of awards dated 5.5.1987 and 2.6.1987 rendered by the Tribunal in the case of other land owners wherein compensation was enhanced in the range of Rs.350/- to Rs.1400/- per marla. This application was accepted and redetermination was made and compensation was again enhanced by the impugned award dated 28.10.1987. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once land owners had already sought reference under section 18 and compensation had been determined by the Tribunal, application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was not thereafter maintainable. Reliance has been placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mewa Ram and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45 and Babua Ram and others v. State of UP and another, (1995) 2 SCC 689, holding that Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was not attracted where land owners had already preferred a reference which had been decided on merits. 4. None appears for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who have been duly served and have filed a reply. 5. In the reply filed, it has been stated that judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mewa Ram (supra) was not applicable. 6. From the facts enumerated above, it is patent that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had preferred reference under section 18 of the 1894 Act which fact, specifically averred in para 3 of the petition, has not been disputed in the corresponding para of the reply. Thus, the matter is fully covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court referred to above. 7. 2 and 3 had preferred reference under section 18 of the 1894 Act which fact, specifically averred in para 3 of the petition, has not been disputed in the corresponding para of the reply. Thus, the matter is fully covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme court referred to above. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned award Annexure P.1 is quashed. ----------------