dated 11.02.2010 and 19.02.2010, issued under Sections 4 and 6, respectively of the 1894 Act, for the public purpose, namely, development and utilization of sector roads for Sectors 81-95 at Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, vide its award dated 14.06.2010, assessed the market value @ Rs.45 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 ld. Reference Court vide award dated 21.03.2014, thereby determining the market value @ Rs.1,18,25,000/- per acre along with solatium and other statutory benefits.

2.2 The aforesaid determination was challenged before this Court, and vide decision dated 27.05.2016 passed in RFA-5316-2014, titled as “Pushpender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another”, this Court assessed the market value @ Rs.2,55,89,760/- per acre, besides awarding other statutory benefits. The said determination was further modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.11913-11945 of 2017 vide judgment dated 05.09.2017, by imposing a cut of 15% towards development charges upon the market value determined by this Court.

2.3 In the meanwhile, the petitioner-landowner, on 22.08.2014, preferred an application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act seeking re- determination of compensation qua her 13 kanal and 10 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of village Wazirpur and forming part of the present acquisition. The said reference petition came to be dismissed by respondent No.2-Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Gurgaon, while recording that the application was barred by limitation been filed beyond

03 months from the date of award dated 21.03.2014, passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.

3. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner-landowner submits that though the reference petition under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act was preferred on the basis of the determination made by the ld. Reference Court on 21.03.2014, however, the said award being under challenge before this Court in Regular First Appeals, respondent No.2 ought to have awaited the outcome of the said appeals, especially, when the Land Acquisition Collector himself was a party-respondent therein. Learned Senior 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 petitioner-landowner from the date of such determination. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel places reliance upon the decision made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Banwari and others v. 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 that the amount awarded by the High Court in the said First Appeal is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the case of the land of the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the appellants had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. It is also not in dispute that the application made by the appellants under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act to the Collector was within a period of three months from the date of the judgment and order of the High Court.

16. From the perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumari (supra), it is clear that the limitation for moving the application under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act will begin to run only from the date of the award on the basis of which redetermination of the compensa