JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J. 

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the award dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) whereby, the reference petition under Section 28 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “1894 Act”), at the instance of appellants-landowners, stood rejected against the order dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Rohtak (for short “LAC”) vide which application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act has been dismissed being barred by limitation.

[2] Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioner, along with the land of few other landowners, situated within the revenue estate of Village Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, came to be acquired vide notifications dated 14.08.2003 and 10.08.2004, issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively of the 1894 Act, for the public purpose, namely, development and utilization of land as residential and commercial Sector-9, Jhajjar. The LAC Rohtak, vide its award dated 27.07.2006, assessed the market value @ Rs.12.50 lacs per acre.

[2.1] Feeling aggrieved, some of the landowners preferred separate reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be disposed of by the learned Reference Court vide award dated 23.02.2015, thereby determining the market value @ Rs.14,89,052/- per acre alongwith solatium and other statutory benefits.

[2.2] The aforesaid determination was challenged before this Court, and vide decision dated 27.11.2015 passed in RFA- 3192-2015, titled as “Ramkala vs. State of Haryana and others”, this Court upheld the market value @ Rs.14,89,052/- per acre, besides even upholding the award of other statutory benefits. The said determination was further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) Nos. 023826-023841 Appeal Nos.11913-11945 of 2016 vide judgment dated 07.07.2017.

[2.3] In the meanwhile, the appellant(s)-landowner, on 01.04.2016, preferred an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act seeking re-determination of compensation qua their 36 kanal and 08 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of village Jhajjar which formed part of the present acquisition. The said application came to be dismissed by respondent No.2-Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Rohtak, while recording that the same was barred by limitation having been filed beyond 03 months from the date of award dated 23.02.2015, passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act; against which reference under Section 28-A (3) also was declined vide impugned judgment passed by the learned Reference Court.

[3] Impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel representing the appellant(s)-landowner(s) submits that though the application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was preferred on the basis of the determination made by the learned Reference Court vide decision dated 23.02.2015, however, the said award being under challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court, respondent No.2 ought to have awaited the outcome of the said appeal, especially, when the LAC himself was a party-respondent therein. Learned counsel further submits that the determination by this Court in pending Regular First Appeals even gave rise to a fresh cause of action in favour of the appellant(s)-landowner(s) from the date of such determination. In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the decision made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Banwari and others vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and another, 1014 (1) RCR (Civil) 232, relevant paras No.15 and 16 thereof are extracted hereunder:-

“15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the First Appeal which was allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2^nd May 2016 was in respect of the land which was covered by the same notification under which notification the appellants’ land is also covered. It is also not in dispute