IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2868-2012 (O&M) Rajesh Kumar and Others . . . . Appellants Vs. Land Acquisi0on Officer, Panchkula . . . . Respondent **** Reserved on: 22.01.2026 Pronounced on: 23.01.2026 Pronounced fully/opera0ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This appeal arises out of the award dated 02.11.1992 passed by the Ref- erence Court under Sec*on 18 of the Land Acquisi*on Act, 1894, rela*ng to ac- quired land situated in Village Taraf Afgan, District Panipat. 2. The land in ques*on, along with land belonging to several other landowners of villages Taraf Afgan, Ugra Kheri and Malik Ugrakheri (now falling within District Panipat), was acquired by the State of Haryana vide no*fica*on dated 15.12.1982 issued under Sec*on 4 of the Act, followed by declara*on dated 23.02.1985 under Sec*on 6, for the public purpose of development and u*lisa*on of residen*al, commercial and industrial area, namely Sector-25, Part- II, Urban Estate, Panipat. The Land Acquisi*on Collector vide Award No.9 dated 27.09.1985, assessed the market value of the acquired land at ₹59,200/- per acre. 3. The land of the appellants also formed part of the said acquisi*on. Their father, Balwant Rai, during his life*me sought a reference under Sec*on YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2868-2012 (O&M) 18 of the Act. The said reference, along with references of other landowners arising from the same acquisi*on, was decided by the Reference Court on 02.11.1992, determining the market value at ₹44/- per square yard. 4. Several landowners, whose lands were acquired under the same no*fica*ons and covered by the same award, approached this Court seeking further enhancement. Their appeals were decided by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.302 of 1996 0tled Joga Ram and others v. State of Haryana and another, (1997) 116 PLR 303, whereby the market value was enhanced to ₹80/- per square yard along with statutory benefits. However, the father of the present appellants, and therea@er the appellants themselves, did not file any appeal immediately. 5. The present appeal has been ins*tuted in July 2012 seeking parity with the judgment of Joga Ram (supra). Along with the appeal, an applica*on bearing CM-5790-CI-2012 under Sec*on 5 of the Limita*on Act has been filed seeking condona*on of delay of 7048 days. The appellants have explained that their father was pursuing the maDer but unfortunately expired in May 2011 without disclosing whether an appeal had been filed. Appellant No.1 therea@er learnt from the District Courts, Panipat, that in LAC No.42 of 2010 decided on 24.12.2011, the Reference Court had condoned a delay of 19 years and 8 months and granted enhanced compensa*on in respect of land covered by the same acquisi*on. Upon verifica*on, it transpired that no appeal had been filed by their father. It is pleaded that the appellants had no mo*ve to delay the proceedings and would derive no benefit from filing the appeal belatedly. 6. Learned State counsel does not dispute that the land of the appellants is covered by the same acquisi*on proceedings and the judgment of Joga Ram (supra), but has opposed the applica*on for condona*on of delay on the ground that no sufficient cause has been shown for such an inordinate delay. Page 2 of 5 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2868-2012 (O&M) 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. It is an admiDed posi*on that the land of the appellants was acquired under the same no*fica*ons issued under Sec*ons 4 and 6 of the Act, governed by the same award of the Land Acquisi*on Collector and decided by the same Reference Court. It is also not in dispute that similarly situated landowners from the very same acquisi*on have already been granted enhanced compensa*on, which has aDained finality. 9. The principles governing condona*on of delay in land acquisi*on maDers are well seDled. In Collector, Land Acquisi!on, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Ka!ji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a liberal, jus*ce-oriented approach must be adopted in considering applica*ons for condona*on of delay, par*cularly where refusal would result in denial of substan*ve jus*ce. It was emphasised that ordinarily a li*gant does not benefit by approaching the Court belatedly. 10. In Market Commi,ee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari, (1996) 1 SCC 311, and Dhiraj Singh (dead) through LRs v. State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 127, the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned delays extending to several years in land acquisi*on cases to ensure parity among landowners whose lands were acquired under the same no*fica*on. The underlying principle is that compensa*on for compulsory acquisi*on must be uniform and non- discriminatory. 11. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisi!on Officer, (2020) 19 SCC 234, while condoning a long delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court balanced equi*es by denying interest for the period of delay. This approach has been consistently followed to prevent unjust enrichment while ensuring substan*ve jus*ce. Page 3 of 5 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2868-2012 (O&M) 12. The cons*tu*onal dimension of the issue has also been highlighted in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408, wherein it was held that the right to property under Ar*cle 300-A mandates that depriva*on must be accompanied by fairness and just compensa*on. Most recently, in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (2025 INSC 550), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that mere delay cannot be a ground to deny lawful compensa*on to a landowner, especially when such denial would result in hos*le discrimina*on amongst similarly situated persons. 13. Applying the aforesaid seDled principles, this Court is of the considered view that the delay in filing the present appeal cannot be characterised as wilful or lacking the bona fides. Refusal to condone the delay would result in an anomalous situa*on where landowners, whose lands were acquired under iden*cal no*fica*ons and for the same public purpose, would receive disparate compensa*on, offending the principles of equality and parity which permeate land acquisi*on jurisprudence. 14. The equi*es of the case can be adequately balanced by denying interest on the enhanced compensa*on for the period of delay, a course consistently approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and fairly accepted by the appellants. 15. Accordingly, the delay of 7048 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the condi*on that the appellants shall not be en*tled to interest on the enhanced compensa*on for the said delayed period. 16. On merits, once the delay is condoned, the controversy no longer survives. The acquisi*on, nature and poten*ality of the land and surrounding circumstances being iden*cal to those considered in Joga Ram and others v. State of Haryana (supra), the appellants are en*tled to the same compensa*on. Denial of such benefit would be wholly unjus*fied and contrary to seDled law. Page 4 of 5 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-2868-2012 (O&M) 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellants shall be en*tled to enhanced compensa*on in terms of LPA No.302 of 1996 *tled Joga Ram and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported as (1997) 116 PLR 303, along with all statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisi*on Act, 1894. However, they shall not be en*tled to interest on the enhanced compensa*on for the delayed period of 7048 days. 18. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending applica*on(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 23.01.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 23.01.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document