JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.: - The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to decide their petition filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), for redetermination of compensation payable to them in respect of land measuring 12 Bighas 19 Biswas (Chahi), situated at village Neelpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, which was acquired vide award No. 2, pronounced on 24.4.1984. 2. The aforesaid claim has been made before the Collector, Land Acquisition and Colonisation Department on the basis of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Balbir Chand and others v. State of Punjab (Civil Appeal Nos. 2275- 2292 of 2005) and Jaswant Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (Civil Appeal No. 3708 of 2006), decided on 7.12.2010 (P-1). Hon’ble the Supreme Court has increased the compensation to Rs.1,87,000/- per acre and it was held that the appellants in said appeals would be entitled to the statutory benefits and interest in terms of the Act. 3. Notice of motion for final disposal of the petition was issued but no reply has been filed. 4. It has come on record that the petitioners had filed reference under Section 18 of the Act and vide order dated 4.10.1988 the District Judge, Patiala, has enhanced the amount. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal bearing RFA No. 3170 of 2006 before this Court, which was dismissed on 12.11.2010 on the sole ground of being barred by limitation. However, the other land owners of the same village preferred appeals before Hon’ble the Supreme Court for enhancement of compensation. As already noticed, the said appeals have been allowed and the amount of compensation is increased to Rs.1,87,000/- per acre (P-1). 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that once the petitioners have availed the remedy of reference before the District Judge and the First Appeal before this Court then Section 28A of the Act for re-determination of the amount of compensation would not be applicable. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 151 and S.C. Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 174. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Mewa Ram v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 151 and S.C. Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 174. The basic reason for the aforesaid view is that the Land Acquisition Collector has no power to set aside the order passed by either the District Judge or by the High Court in the reference and the appeal respectively. Such a power can only be exercised by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Therefore, the writ petition is without any merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of above, the instant petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. --------------