[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I) RFA-3974-2018 (O&M) Ram Kumar (since deceased) through his LRs ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents II) RFA-6296-2018 (O&M) Sat Narain (since deceased) through his LRs ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents III) RFA-719-2022 (O&M) Bal Swaroop (since deceased) through his LR ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Reserved on: 09.04.2026 Pronounced on: 20.04.2026 Pronounced fully/opera;ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-719-2022. Ms. Inderpal Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Akash Mehra, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the appellants in RFA-3974-2018. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant in RFA-6296-2018. Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana. Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate for respondent No.2 in RFA-6296-2018. **** YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [2] DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of three Regular First Appeals filed un- der Sec7on 54 of the Land Acquisi7on Act, 1894, seeking enhancement of compensa7on awarded for the acquired land. Each appeal is accompanied by an applica7on for condona7on of substan7al delay ranging from 4983 to 5562 days. Applicaon for Bringing Legal Representaves on Record : 2. In RFA-3974-2018, CM-9189-CI-2018 has been filed under Or- der 22 Rule 3 CPC for subs7tu7on of legal representa7ves of deceased ap- pellant Ram Kumar. 3. For the reasons stated in the applica7on, duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The persons men7oned therein are taken on record as legal representa7ves. Amended memo of par7es is also taken on record. Applicaons for condonaon of Delay : 4. All the three appeals are accompanied by separate applica7ons for condona7on of delay of substan7al period, as per the following table :
CM-9188-CI-2018 in RFA-3974-2018 - delay of 5014 days.
CM-12460-CI-2018 in RFA-6296-2018 - delay of 4983 days.
CM-1558-CI-2022 in RFA-719-2022 - delay of 5562 days. 5. The ques7on is whether such inordinate delay in filing the ap- peals deserves to be condoned. The State has opposed the applica7ons, contending that the appellants, having approached this Court aAer an ex- traordinary lapse of 7me, cannot be permiCed to claim the benefit of en- hancement granted to other landowners. 6. However, it is not disputed that the lands of the present appel- lants form part of the same acquisi7on proceedings ini7ated vide no7fica- 7on dated 12.05.1995 issued under Sec7on 4 of the Act, followed by declar- a7on under Sec7on 6 dated 10.05.1996, for development of residen7al and YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [3] commercial sectors 9 & 9A at Bahadurgarh. The compensa7on determined under the original award by the collector, as well as the subsequent adju- dica7ons by reference court and then by this High Court, has undergone mul7ple stages of judicial scru7ny, culmina7ng in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.11.2017 in Rajender Singh and others v. State of Haryana (Civil Appeal No.19354 of 2017), whereby the market value of similarly situated lands has been finally determined. 7. In this backdrop, the ques7on of limita7on is required to be ex- amined not in isola7on, but in the context of the seCled legal principles governing land acquisi7on maCers. It is by now well established that in cases involving compulsory acquisi7on of land, courts are required to adopt a liberal and jus7ce-oriented approach while considering applica7ons for condona7on of delay. The underlying ra7onale is that a landowner, who has been deprived of his property by the State, cannot be denied just com- pensa7on merely on account of delay, par7cularly when other similarly situated landowners have already been granted enhanced compensa7on. 8. The principle of parity assumes considerable significance in such maCers. Denial of the same compensa7on to landowners, whose lands are covered by the very same no7fica7on would result in an anomal- ous and inequitable situa7on, offending not only the concept of fairness but also the equality clause enshrined in Ar7cle 14 of the Cons7tu7on. Fur- ther, the right to property under Ar7cle 300-A, though no longer a funda- mental right, con7nues to be a valuable cons7tu7onal right, which man- dates that depriva7on thereof must be accompanied by just, fair and reas- onable compensa7on. 9. At the same 7me, the courts have evolved a balanced ap- proach to safeguard the interests of the State by denying interest for the period of delay, thereby ensuring that while substan7ve jus7ce is done, the financial burden arising out of inordinate delay is not unjustly imposed upon the State. Reference may be made to Collector, Land Acquision, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [4] Anand Nag & Nr. Vs. Mst. Kaji & Ors, (1987) 2 SCC 107; Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 1408; and Coffee Board, Karnataka v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, (1988) 3 SCC 263. 10. In Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 127; and in Market Commi:ee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 311, long delays, running into several thousand days, were condoned by Supreme Court precisely to maintain parity between similarly situated landowners. Likewise, in Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner & LAO, (2020) 19 SCC 234, while condoning long delays, Hon’ble Supreme Court balanced the equi7es by denying interest for the delayed period. The recent reitera7on of these principles is found in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2025 INSC 550), where Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that delay alone cannot deprive a landowner of compensa7on that is otherwise lawfully due. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the delay in filing the appeals cannot be said to be deliberate or mala fide. More importantly, refusal to condone the delay would result in denial of compensa7on at par with other landowners, whose lands were acquired under the same no7fica7on and who have already been granted enhanced compensa7on by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Such a course would be legally untenable. 12. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned, subject to the condi7on that the appellants shall not be en7tled to interest on the enhanced compensa7on for the period of delay. Merits of the Appeals 13. Turning to the merits of the case, it is not disputed by either of the par7es that the controversy involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.11.2017 in Rajender Singh and others v. State of Haryana. The acquisi7on, the no7- YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [5] fica7ons, the award, and the subsequent adjudica7ons are common. There is no dis7nguishing feature, which would jus7fy denial of the benefit of the said judgment to the present appellants. 14. Once the market value of the land acquired under the same no7fica7on has been finally determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the principle of finality coupled with parity leaves no room for any further adju- dica7on on the issue. The appellants are, therefore, en7tled to compensa- 7on at the same rate of ₹ 12 Lacs per Acre, as has been awarded in the aforesaid judgment, along with all statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisi7on Act, 1894. 15. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The appellants shall be en7tled to an enhanced compensa7on in terms of the judgment dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ra- jender Singh and others v. State of Haryana (supra), along with all con- sequen7al statutory benefits. However, they shall not be en7tled to any in- terest for the period of delay, as no7ced hereinabove. 16. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. 20.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 20.04.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document