JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral).:- By this common order, I shall be disposing of two Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 651 of 1991 filed by the claimants/landowners and 280 of 1991 filed by the State of Haryana, against the award of learned District Judge, Gurgaon, dated 14.11.1990, as law and facts involved therein are identical. The facts are, however, extracted from RFA No.. 651 of 1991 (Chhellu and others v. State of Haryana). 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short,’the Act’), dated 20.3.1975 land in village Dundahera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired including the land of the appellants bearing Rectangle No. 54 Killa Nos.13/1/2 (16M), 14/2 (4K), 15/2 (2k7M) 17 ½ (13M) total measuring 7 kanals 16 Marlas. 3. The Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon (for short,’the Collector’) vide his award dated 29.3.1978 determined the compensation @ Rs. 12,000/- per acre. 4. Some of the claimants/landowners including one Jai Lal filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, which were decided by the reference Court of Sh. R.K.Gupta, the then learned District Judge, Gurgaon and the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 17.50 per square yard besides other statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act. 5. The present appellants who did not prefer the objections under Section 18 of the Act, filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act on 28.10.1987 before the Collector for the purpose of redetermination of compensation of their land in terms of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon dated 30.9.1981 in L.A.Case No. 1 of 1986 of Jai Lal etc. 6. The Collector rejected the application vide his order dated 29.12.1989. The appellants then filed an application to the Collector under Section 28-A (3) of the Act for the purpose of reference to the Court. The said application was received in the office of the Collector on 28.10.1987. Thereafter. It was referred to the Civil Court for adjudication. 7. After taking into consideration the fact that in the case of L.A. Case No.1 of 1986, the reference Court has already enhanced the compensation @ Rs. The said application was received in the office of the Collector on 28.10.1987. Thereafter. It was referred to the Civil Court for adjudication. 7. After taking into consideration the fact that in the case of L.A. Case No.1 of 1986, the reference Court has already enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 17.50 per square yard and the fact that the appellants had not filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, the learned District Judge, Gurgaon vide his impugned order dated 14.11.1990 allowed the application and awarded compensation @ Rs.17.50 per square yard along-with all other statutory benefits. 8. Aggrieved against the award, the claimants have come up in appeal for further enhancement, whereas the State of Haryana filed the appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for allowing the application under Section 28-A (3) of the Act. 9. Sh.S.K.Sharma, learned counsel while pursuing the appeal filed by the claimants bearing RFA No.651 of 1991, has vehemently contended that the matter of acquisition of village Dundahera which was subject matter of determination of compensation in LA Case No.1 of 1986 had ultimately reached up to the Supreme Court in which vide order dated 10.9.1981, the compensation has been enhanced at the following rates:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Section 4 Notification/ Rate per sq. yard Date of Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20.3.1975 22 rupees 26.5.1976 25 rupees 3.9.1976 26 rupees 6.1.1978 30 rupees ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants/appellant has further contended that since the acquisition in the present case is dated 20.3.1975 in which the Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.22/- per square yard, the same compensation should have been awarded to the claimants/landowners instead of Rs.17.50. per square yard as awarded by the reference Court. 11. In reply to this argument, Ms. Mamta Singal Talwar, learned A.A.G.Haryana, has vehemently contended that the award of the Supreme Court cannot be taken into consideration because the Court has been defined under Section 2 (d) of the Act to mean a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, therefore, no benefit can be derived by the appellants/claimants from the decision of the Supreme Court. Learned State Counsel has also submitted that application under Section 28-A (3) of the Act, filed by the claimants before the Court was not maintainable as the earlier application filed before the Collector was already rejected on 29.12.1989. 12. In reply, Mr. Learned State Counsel has also submitted that application under Section 28-A (3) of the Act, filed by the claimants before the Court was not maintainable as the earlier application filed before the Collector was already rejected on 29.12.1989. 12. In reply, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants has contended that as per scheme of the Act, the persons competent for filing an application under Section 28-A are those who have not filed any objection under Section 18 of the Act. He further submitted that the application which was rejected by the Collector was filed under Section 28-A (1) of the Act and against that order, application under Section 28-A (3) of the Act was maintainable which was to be decided not by the Collector but by the Court. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the available record. 14. Before adverting to the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to refer to the basic provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. “Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.- (1) 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 Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 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 (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub section (1) conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (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 Section 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18. Insofar as the first argument of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is concerned that the claimants should be awarded compensation on the basis of the award of the Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in it because it has been well settled now that the Civil Court of original jurisdiction as prescribed under Section 2 (d) of the Act means ‘the reference Court’ and for that purpose, the claimants cannot take advantage of further enhancement of compensation by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants in this regard is hereby dismissed. Insofar as the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, is concerned, it is not disputed that initially, an application under Section 28-A of the Act, was filed by the claimants on 28.10.1987 before the Collector for redetermination of compensation. In terms of Section 28-A (2), the Collector, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) conducted an inquiry and then found the application without any merit and the said application was rejected vide order dated 29.12.1989. Section 28-A (3) of the Act specifically provides that 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 Section 18 to 28 shall apply to such reference. The claimants admittedly have filed an application under Section 28-A (3) of the Act on 5.1.1990 i.e. only six days after the order passed by the Collector dismissing the application under Section 28-A (2) of the Act which has now been decided by the reference Court in favour of the claimants, therefore, in my view, the application under Section 28-A (3) of the Act is maintainable. Thus, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the State is hereby rejected. 15. Thus, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the State is hereby rejected. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further argued that since the first award of this acquisition was passed by the reference Court on 30.9.1981, therefore, the application filed by the claimants on 5.1.1990 was really time barred being beyond the period of three months. In this regard, learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Mange Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others [2005(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 285] : (2005-3) P.L.R.759 to contend that the claimants are entitled to file an application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A on the basis of latest award of the reference Court. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:- “In the light of the afore-quoted decisions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the law laid down by the larger bench of Five Hon’ble Judges in Union of India and another vs. Hansoli Devi (Supra), I hold that the claimants in the present appeals were eligible to file claim petitions on the basis of the latest award given by the Reference Court on 29.9,1989. It does not make any difference if the claimants had not filed the reference applications under Section 18 of the Act at any earlier point of time. In the present case, the appellants had filed the reference applications in order to avail of a beneficial provisions of Section 28-A of the Act. In Union of India vs. Hansoli Devi (Supra), it has been held by their Lordships that the Parliament having enacted Section 28-A, as a beneficial provision, it would cause great injustice if a literal interpretation is given to the expression “had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18” in Section 28-A of the Act. In this view of the matter, it is held that it would not make any difference if the claimants had not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector within three months of the earliest award given by the Reference Court. In case the claimants have filed the reference applications within three months of the latest award given by the Reference Court on 29.9.1989, that is equally good and they are eligible to get the benefits of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act”. 16. In case the claimants have filed the reference applications within three months of the latest award given by the Reference Court on 29.9.1989, that is equally good and they are eligible to get the benefits of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act”. 16. Same view has been taken by this Court in the case of Tulsi and others vs. The State of Haryana, through the Collector, Land Acquisition, Urban Estate, Panchkula and another (1992-1) P.L.R. 235. 17. In view of the law laid by this Court, this argument raised by the learned State Counsel is also rejected. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, namely RFA No.280 of 1991 and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the State of Haryana are found to be without any merit and are dismissed without any order as to costs. ------------------