Jai Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate; Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate; Mr. Kartar Singh Malik-I, Advocate landowner(s). for the appellant(s)-landowner(s) I, Advocate Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional State of Haryana. for the respondent(s)-State of Haryana. , Additional Advocate General, Hayana Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate HSIIDC. for the respondent(s)-HSIIDC. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA, J. **** This order shall dispose of the present two (02) This order shall dispose of the appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2710 of 2021 appeals bearing 2021; and 1295 of 2022; as the same arise out of common acquisition/award dated 30.03.2016 same arise out of common acquisition/award same arise out of common acquisition/award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak-cum- passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak Reference Court. Reference Court RFA No. 2710 of 2021 (O&M) and RFA No. 1295 of 2022 (O&M) -2- Delay Application(s) in filing the appeal(s) in both cases In the present cases, there are applications conondonation of delay of 1433 & 1356 days in filing the appeals respectively. Upon notice(s), no reply has been filed; however, learned counsel(s) for the respondent(s) vehemently oppose the prayer made in the application(s). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application(s). Concededly, the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to the acquired land falling in the same revenue estate, i.e. Village Bohar, Tehsil & District Rohtak, in view of judgment/order dated

15.11.2021 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 3000 of 2016, titled “Jai Singh Versus State of Haryana and others”. 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(s). 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 RFA No. 2710 of 2021 (O&M) and RFA No. 1295 of 2022 (O&M) -3- 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:- “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.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as contents of the applications, the same are allowed and delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned above, is hereby condoned. However, the applicants shall not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. RFA No. 2710 of 2021 (O&M) and RFA No. 1295 of 2022 (O&M) -4- MAIN APPEAL(S) In both appeals, the appellant(s)-landowner(s) are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. [2] At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant(s)- landowner(s) submits that the present appeals are squarely covered by the judgment dated 15.11.2021 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 3000 of 2016, titled “Jai Singh Versus State of Haryana and others”. [3] Learned counsel(s) for the respondent(s) are not in a position to controvert the above factual position. [4] After going through the judgment 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. [5] Consequently, the present appeal(s) are disposed of in the same terms as Jai Singh’s case (supra). [6] It is further added that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal(s). [7] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off. May 26, 2026 ‘dk kamra’ ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Whether Reportable : Yes Yes No No