HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH v. GUPTA

Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, fo e, for the appellants. Mr. Pritam S. Saini, Additional A.G. Mr. Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana. Mr. A.G. Haryana with **** DEEPAK GUPTA PTA, J. This appeal under Section 54 of th Thi f the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arises out of the f the award dated 31.03.2012 passe assed by the Reference Court of Learned Additio ditional District Judge Sonipat, relat elating to acquired land situated in village Asaw sawarpur, District Sonipat. The app appeal is also accompanied by application bear bearing CM-5264-CI-2023 under Se r Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1983 seeking co g condonation of delay of 3426 day days in filing the appeal.

2. As the paper-book would reveal t As eal that land situated in various villages includin uding Asawarpur was notified for ac or acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acqui cquisition Act on 17.11.2005, follo followed by another notification dated 07.02.200 .2006 under Section 6 of the Act fo ct for public purpose, namely for the developme ment and utilization of land as c as commercial, institutional and residential area area for Sectors 65, 66, 67 and 68 S 68 Sonipat. The Land Acquisition Collector awar warded (cid:1)12,50,000/- per acre cre for all kinds of land as compensation f on for the land along with other ben r benefits. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.05.07 17:46 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh RSA-1821-2023

3. The acquired land included the land of the appellants, situated in village Asawarpur. Various landowners, including the appellant, preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court decided all those references in a bunch led by LAC No.398 of 2011 titled ‘Mauji Ram v. State of Haryana’, vide his award dated 31.03.2012 and assessed the market value of the acquired land at ₹32,00,000/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits.

4. Not satisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellants are in the present appeal accompanied by application to condone the delay.

5. In the application of condonation of delay, it is submitted that as many as 6 references were filed by the petitioners, which were decided in a bunch. The counsel engaged to file the appeals was provided documents of all the cases. However, when the RFAs of the other landowners were decided by a consolidated order, it came to the notice of the appellants, at the time of disbursal of compensation, that RFAs of only 04 references had been filed and that 2 RFAs were not filed inadvertently, which has resulted in the delay of 3426 days in filing the appeal.

6. The appellants further submit that appeals arising out of the same acquisition were decided by this Court on 03.11.2015. Subsequent proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including SLPs, review applications, and remand, culminated in a common judgment dated

05.07.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench in RFA No.4101-2008 titled HSIIDC v.Rajesh Kumar and others, whereby compensation was enhanced. It is submitted that the present appellants stands on identical footing and that parity demands extension of the same benefit.

7. Learned State counsel filed reply to the application for condonation of delay today in Court and the same is taken on record. He while opposing condonation of delay, has fairly conceded that the land of the appellants forms part of the same acquisition and is governed by the judgment dated 05.07.2019. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.05.07 17:46 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh RSA-1821-2023

8. Heard. It is noticed that the applicants alongwith various other landowners had sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which were decided by the Reference Court on 31.03.2012. Other landowners preferred appeals before this Court seeking further enhancement, which were disposed of by a Coordinate Bench on

03.11.2015.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.11.2015, the other landowners, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (Civil) Nos.5535-5609 of 2016. Vide order dated 28.03.2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed certain discrepancies in the judgment of this Court and granted liberty to the landowners to approach this Court by filing review applications. Pursuant thereto, the other landowners filed RA-RF-480-CI- 2016, which was decided on 21.11.2016 along with review petitions of other similarly situated landowners.

10. The landowners again approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which repatriated the matters to this Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court considered a bunch of appeals led by RFA No.4101-2008 titled HSIDC v. Rajesh Kumar-II and others, and disposed of the same by a common judgment dated 05.07.2019.

11. Learned State counsel, fairly concedes that the applicants’ case is squarely covered by the said judgment.

12. This Court has considered the submissions and examined the record.

13. At the outset, it is not disputed that the land of the applicants forms part of the same acquisition, governed by the same notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the same award of the Land Acquisition Collector, and the same reference proceedings. It is also fairly conceded that similarly situated landowners have already been granted enhanced compensation pursuant to judgments which have attained finality. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.05.07 17:46 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh RSA-1821-2023

14. The principles governing condonation of delay acquisition matters are now well settled. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that a liberal and justice-oriented approach must be adopted in considering applications for condonation of delay, particularly in matters involving compulsory acquisition of land. The Court emphasised that technical considerations should not defeat substantial justice and that a landowner does not ordinarily stand to benefit by approaching the Court belatedly.

15. In Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari and others, (1996) 1 SCC 311, and Dhiraj Singh (dead) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2014) 14 SCC 127, the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned delays extending over several years to ensure parity amongst landowners whose lands were acquired under the same notification. In Huchanagouda(s) v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, (2020) 19 SCC 234, while condoning long delay, the Court balanced equities by denying interest for the delayed period.

16. The constitutional dimension of the right to just compensation under Article 300-A has been underscored in M/s Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408, read with Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, (1988) 3 SCC 263, holding that deprivation of property must be accompanied by fairness and adequate compensation. The most recent reiteration of these principles is found in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (2025 INSC 550), where it was held that delay alone cannot be a ground to deny compensation that is otherwise lawfully payable, particularly when denial would lead to discriminatory treatment among similarly situated landowners.

17. Applying the aforesaid settled principles, this Court is of the considered view that the delay of 3426 days in filing the review petition is neither deliberate nor lacking in bona fides. Non-condonation of delay VIVEK PAHWA 2026.05.07 17:46 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh RSA-1821-2023 would result in an anomalous situation, where landowners from the same acquisition would receive disparate compensation for identical lands, offending the principles of equality and parity which lie at the heart of land acquisition jurisprudence. The equities can be appropriately balanced by denying interest for the delayed period, a course repeatedly approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accepted by the applicants.

18. Accordingly, the delay of 3426 days in filing the review application is condoned, subject to the condition that the applicants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the said period.

19. Turning to the merits of the appeal, it is undisputed that the appellant’s land is governed by the same acquisition proceedings and adjudications culminating in the judgments in RFA No.4101-2008 titled HSIDC v. Rajesh Kumar-II and others decided on 05.07.2019. The State has fairly conceded the said factual position. Once this Court, in RFA No.4101- 2008 titled HSIDC v. Rajesh Kumar-II and others decided on 05.07.2019 has enhanced compensation for lands forming part of the same acquisition, denial of the same benefit to the present appellants would be wholly unjustified.

20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation in terms of the judgment dated 05.07.2019 in RFA No.4101-2008 titled HSIDC v. Rajesh Kumar-II and others, along with all statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, except interest for the delayed period of 3426 days.

21. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The applicants–appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation in terms of the judgment dated

05.07.2019 in RFA No.4101-2008 along with all other statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, except interest for the delayed period of 3426 days. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.05.07 17:46 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh RSA-1821-2023

22. CM-5264-CI-2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as RFA No.1821 of 2023 stand allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Any pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

07.05.2026 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE VIVEK PAHWA 2026.05.07 17:46 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh