Assessing the quality of Natural Language Generation (NLG) outputs, such as those produced by large language models (LLMs), poses significant challenges. Traditional approaches involve either resource-intensive human evaluations or automatic metrics, which often exhibit a low correlation with human judgment. In this study, we propose Review-Feedback-Reason (ReFeR), a novel evaluation framework for NLG using LLM agents. We rigorously test ReFeR using two pre-existing benchmark datasets on diverse NLG tasks. The proposed framework not only enhances the accuracy of NLG evaluation, surpassing previous benchmarks by 20%, but also generates constructive feedback and significantly improves collective reasoning. This feedback is then leveraged for the creation of instruction-tuning datasets, which, when used to fine-tune smaller models like Mistral-7B, makes them extremely good evaluators, yielding a better correlation with human evaluations and performance nearly on par with GPT-3.5. We highlight the effectiveness of our methodology through its application on three reasoning benchmarks, where it outperforms most of the state-of-the-art methods, and also outperforms the reasoning capabilities of models like GPT-3.5 Turbo by 11.67% and GPT-4 by 1% on an average.