Krishna Rani @ Krishnawanti Krishna Rani @ Krishnawanti Krishna Rani @ Krishnawanti & Ors. v. Versus State of Haryana State of Haryana & Ors.

in filing the Regular First Appeal. of delay of 1104 days in filing the Regular First Appeal. of delay of

Notice of the application was issued and in response Notice of the application was issued and in response Notice of the application was issued and in response no reply has been filed by the respondents. no reply has been filed by the respondents thereto no reply has been filed by the respondents

el for the parties and gone I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone I have heard learned couns through the contents of the application as well as reply. through the contents of the application as well as reply. through the contents of the application as well as reply.

To seek condonation of delay, following reasons have To seek condonation of delay, following reasons have To seek condonation of delay, following reasons have of the application and the same been expressed in paragraph No.2 of the application and the same of the application and the same been expressed in paragraph are extracted hereunder: extracted hereunder:- “2. of land and demolition That due to acquisition of land and demolition That due to acquis of structure of the unit, applicants/appellants structure of the unit, applicants/appellants SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.16 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1345 1345-2023 (O&M) [2] suffered huge loss in the business, they were suffered huge loss in the business, they were suffered huge loss in the business, they were already under the huge debt. Since adequate already under the huge debt. Since adequate already under the huge debt.

Considering the fact that the amount of compensation Considering the fact that the amount of compensation Considering the fact that the amount of compensation ning to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide pertaining to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide ning to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide ning to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide , in case of other similarly situated decision dated 31.08.2022, in case of other similarly situated , in case of other similarly situated decision dated it would be landowners and thus considering the principle of parity, it would be landowners and thus considering the principle of parity, landowners and thus considering the principle of parity, e of unjustified in case the present appeal filed at the instance of unjustified in case the present appea unjustified in case the present appea owners is declined on the ground of delay in filing the same, as it landowners is declined on the ground of delay in filing the same, as it owners is declined on the ground of delay in filing the same, as it owners is declined on the ground of delay in filing the same, as it would also violate the principles of equity as well as their claim of fair would also violate the principles of equity as well as their claim of fair would also violate the principles of equity as well as their claim of fair would also violate the principles of equity as well as their claim of fair and just compensation.

1016. Paragraphs 9 Paragraphs 9 to 11 of Ningappa and paragraph Ningappa’s case (supra) and paragraph 12 of Mohar Singh Mohar Singh’s case (supra) are reproduced hereunder: are reproduced hereunder:- Paragraphs 9 to 11 of Ningappa’s case “Paragraphs 9 to 11 of cited view has been consistently 9. The afore-cited view has been consistently cited view has been consistently Court in a series of cases before and followed by this Court in a series of cases before and Court in a series of cases before and after the decision in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case after the decision in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case after the decision in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., 2014 14 SCC 133, it was observed Collector & Ors., 2014 14 SCC 133, it was observed Collector & Ors., 2014 14 SCC 133, it was observed that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition cannot be cannot be reason to deny to deny just and just and compensation to the claimants.

This Court observed compensation to the claimants. This Court observed compensation to the claimants. This Court observed that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, 2019 SCC Online SC and Land Acquisition Officer, 2019 SCC Online SC and Land Acquisition Officer, 2019 SCC Online SC oned the delay and restored 990 also this Court condoned the delay and restored 990 also this Court cond parity in the matter of grant of compensation though parity in the matter of grant of compensation though parity in the matter of grant of compensation though with a condition ‘that for the period of delay in filing with a condition ‘that for the period of delay in filing with a condition ‘that for the period of delay in filing and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions, the and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions, the and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions, the appellant claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any appellant claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any appellant claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any hanced compensation and statutory interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory hanced compensation and statutory amount.’ 10.

It is undeniable that this Court vide amount.’ 10. It is undeniable that this Court vide amount.’ 10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 No. 2927/2010 No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.) has set aside Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.) has set aside Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the order of rt and restored the High Court and restored the High Cou compensation as was awarded by the Reference compensation as was awarded by the Reference compensation as was awarded by the Reference Court. In the cited case, this Court held as follows: Court. In the cited case, this Court held as follows: ‘We have heard the learned counsel for the ‘We have heard the learned counsel for the ‘We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some length and carefully perused the parties to some length and carefully perused the parties to some length and carefully perused the opinion material on record.

We are of the considered opinion material on record. We are of the considered that the impugned judgment and order of the High that the impugned judgment and order of the High that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and order passed by the Reference Court restored. We order passed by the Reference Court restored. We order passed by the Reference Court restored. We SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.16 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1345 1345-2023 (O&M) [4] say so because, this Court has in a similar appeal say so because, this Court has in a similar appeal say so because, this Court has in a similar appeal directed against the very same order set aside the directed against the very same order set aside the directed against the very same order set aside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement impugned judgment and restored the enhancement impugned judgment and restored the enhancement granted by the Reference Court.

We see no reason to granted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to granted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case. We, take a different view in the present case. We, take a different view in the present case. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and while setting aside accordingly, allow this appeal and while setting aside accordingly, allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to he appellant, restore the judgment and order passed the appellant, restore the judgment and order passed he appellant, restore the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.’

11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed 11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed 11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants. They are, thus, entitled to seek parity and claimants. They are, thus, entitled to seek parity and claimants. They are, thus, entitled to seek parity and ir and just compensation claim the same amount of fair and just compensation claim the same amount of fa as has been awarded to other land owners. The as has been awarded to other land owners. The as has been awarded to other land owners. The appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this for the period for which they did not approach this for the period for which they did not approach this Court.” “Paragraph 12 of Mohar Singh Mohar Singh’s case

12. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for parties and on perusal record, perusal of the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the the appellants are entitled to seek parity with co-villagers the grant compensation for their their acquired land. This Court has consistently held in a catena of decisions that inordinate delay filing appeal compensatory in compensatory matters, per se, may may not be fatal as the rights and equities between the parties can be well balanced denying the statutory statutory benefits, such as interest for delayed period. We are opinion are thus of the considered opinion that the delay in filing filing the first appeal(s) could condoned subject to appellants the condition that the appellants would not be entitled entitled to enure undue benefit for delayed period. We grant such indulgence in SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.16 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellant’s favour also also for the reason that a batch of first RFA-1345 1345-2023 (O&M) [5] appeals at the instance instance of other land owners was pending consideration consideration before the High Court. All that High Court ought to have emphatically denied to late-comers was the benefit benefit of interest including on solatium, under Section Section 34 of the Act for the period from the date of passing of Court of the award by the Reference Court till the filing of the first first appeals.”