342 IN TH Bant Ram State of Pun CORAM: Present: HARKESH CM No. 701 days in filing 3-Punjab S Registry, is vehemently dismissal of through the of responde pertaining IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date am (deceased) through LRs and ano Versus of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate, for Mr. Athar Ahmed, Deputy Advo for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. None for respondent No. 3. **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 7013-CI-2019 This is an application for con n filing the appeal. Reply to the application filed o jab State Agriculture Marketing Bo try, is taken on record. Learned counsel represen ently opposes the prayer made in th of the application. I have heard learned counse the contents of the application as w pondent No.3. Concededly, the other simi to the same acquisition procee UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 2959 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.01.2026 nd another ...Appellants ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA for the appellants. Advocate General, Punjab r condonation of delay of 2700 filed on behalf of respondent No. g Board (Mandi Board) in the resenting the respondent(s) e in the application and prays for ounsel for the parties and gone n as well as reply filed on behalf similarly situated landowners proceedings have already been DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.28 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -2-     held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation vide judgment dated 22.02.2019 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals with lead case bearing RFA-5978-2013 (O&M), titled as <Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Mandi Board) vs. Ludhar Mal and others=. Based thereupon and applying the principle of parity, besides grant of just and fair compensation, the 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 Hon9ble 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:- <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 in 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 DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.28 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -3-     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 application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned above, is hereby condoned. However, the applicant(s) shall not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. MAIN CASE At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 22.02.2019 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals with lead case bearing RFA-5978-2013 (O&M), titled as <Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Mandi Board) vs. Ludhar Mal and others=. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- < Relief:- 45. Accordingly, the present appeals of the landowners are allowed, whereas those of the Mandi Board are dismissed. The market value is assessed @ Rs.300/- per square yard (Rs.14,52,000/- per acre) alongwith all statutory benefits for the land falling in Khasra No.388//24, 25, 389//21, 22, 395//1, 2, 9, 10, DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.28 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
       -4-     11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 396//4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 403//4 & 5, 404//1 & 2 and @ Rs180/- per square yard (Rs8,71,200/- per acre) alongwith all statutory benefits for the land which was behind the above said land and not mentioned in the abovesaid numbers.= [2] On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent(s) is not in a position to controvert the above factual position. [3] After going through the judgment passed in Ludhar Mal9s case (supra) as well as the present case, this Court agrees with the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant(s). [4] Consequently, the present appeal is disposed off in the same terms as Ludhar Mal9s case (supra). [5] It is further added that the appellant(s) shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 2700 days in filing the appeal. [6] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
January 27, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 8dk kamra9 JUDGE



 




 



DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.28 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document