IN TH v. HARKESH MANUJA

Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Adv for the respondents. ty Advocate General, Haryana HARKESH KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) **** CM No. 125 125-CI of 2023 Notice of the instant applicatio plication re:condonation of delay of 352 days days in filing the appeal was issued sued on 13.03.2023. No reply has been filed, howe however, learned State Counsel vehemently ently opposes the prayer made in th in the application. I have heard learned counse ounsel for the parties and gone through the h the contents of the application. Concededly, the other simi similarly situated landowners pertaining t ning to the same acquisition procee proceedings have already been held entitled ntitled for the enhanced amount of c nt of compensation pertaining to the acquire cquired land falling in the same re me revenue estate, i.e. Village Hayatpur, ur, Tehsil & District Gurgaon, to t to the tune of Rs.3,52,00,000/- per acre, in re, in view of judgment/order dated ated 27.05.2016 passed by this DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -2-(cid:4) (cid:4) Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 5316 of 2014, titled “Pushpender Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and another”, which was challenged by some landowners and the State Government before the Hon’ble Apex Court and ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide decision dated

05.09.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 11913-11945 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8094-8126 of 2017), titled “State of Haryana & Anr. Versus Pushpendra Kumar & Ors.”, dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners, while partly allowing the appeals of the State Government by ordering the deduction of 15% towards development. Based thereupon and applying the principle of parity, besides compensation, landowners/applicants being similarly situated are held entitled for grant of similar amount of compensation, however, without any payment of interest for the period of delay in filing the present appeal. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another” reported as “2020 (19) SCC 599” and the latest exposition of law in Mohar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector & Ors. reported as “2023 INSC 1019” whereby, delay of 12 years and 353 days was condoned to accord parity between similarly placed landowners albeit no interest was awarded for delayed period. The relevant portion thereof is extracted hereunder:- DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -3-(cid:4) (cid:4) “12. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the appellants are entitled to seek parity with their co-villagers the grant of compensation for their acquired land. This Court has consistently held in a catena of decisions that the inordinate delay in filing appeal in compensatory matters, per se, may not be fatal as the rights and equities between the parties can be well balanced by denying the statutory benefits, such as interest for the delayed period. We are thus of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the first appeal(s) could be condoned subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to enure undue benefit for the delayed period. We grant such indulgence in the appellant's favour also for the reason that a batch of first appeals at the instance of other land owners was still pending consideration before the High Court. All that the High Court ought to have emphatically denied to the late-comers was the benefit of interest including on the solatium, under Section 34 of the Act for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court till the filing of the first appeals.” (cid:1) (cid:1) In view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as contents of the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned above, is hereby condoned. However, the applicant-appellant shall not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. MAIN APPEAL Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 5316 of 2014, titled “Pushpender Kumar and others DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4) (cid:4) (cid:4) -4-(cid:4) (cid:4) Versus State of Haryana and another”, which was further modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 05.09.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 11913-11945 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8094-8126 of 2017), titled “State of Haryana & Anr. Versus Pushpendra Kumar & Ors.”. [2] Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the above factual position. [3] After going through the judgment passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above as well as the facts of the present case, this Court agrees with the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellants. [4] Consequently, the present appeal is disposed off in the same terms as Pushpender Kumar’s case (supra), which was further modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [5] It is further added that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. [6] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off. (cid:1) February 26, 2026 ‘dk kamra’ (cid:1) ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:1) (cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:1) (cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:1) DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document