11. We have heard Dr. Sabban, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, on this aspect. We need not go into this aspect at all, as we inquired from Dr. Sabban as to how, once the Petitioners have already filed a Reference under Section 18 and secured an order, can approach Respondent No.2 under Section 28A of the 1894 Act. In answer to this query, Dr. Sabban submitted that in the facts of the present case, the Petitioners had filed a Reference Application [Land Acquisition Reference No.35 of 1995] which was decided by the judgment and order dated 31st December, 2001. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Reference Court (partly allowing the reference), the Petitioners preferred an Appeal before this Court by filing First Appeal (ST) No.26755 of 2011. As there was a delay, Civil Application No.1572 of 2012 was also filed seeking a condonation of delay of 9 years and 183 days. That came to be rejected not only by this Court but also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Once the Appeal was held to be time barred, then Petitioners would be entitled to approach Respondent No.2 under Section 28A of the 1894 Act within three months of the rejection, was the submission. In support of this contention, Dr. Sabban relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another V/S Hansoli Devi and Others (AIR 2002 SC 3240) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Laxmibai Gopalrao Patil
