As per case facts, landowners lost their land and received initial compensation. Some landowners sought a reference, leading to an enhanced award from the Reference Court. The appellants, who did ... not seek a direct reference, filed a first application under Section 28-A for re-determination based on the Reference Court's award. While appeals related to the original award were pending, this first application was granted. Later, the High Court further enhanced compensation for other landowners. The appellants then filed a second application under Section 28-A based on the High Court's enhanced award, which was rejected by the authorities. The question arose whether a second application under Section 28-A for re-determination of compensation is maintainable based on an appellate court's award, especially after a prior re-determination based on a Reference Court's award. Finally, the Supreme Court held that such a second application is maintainable. The Court reasoned that Section 28-A aims to ensure equality and parity among similarly placed landowners, and the doctrine of merger dictates that the appellate court's award subsumes the lower court's award, becoming the final basis for compensation. The Court noted that a previous judgment to the contrary was per incuriam for not considering established precedents and legislative intent.