RA-RF-9 128(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA United Cold Storage and Ice Factory State of Haryana CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-3075 Limitation Act, is for condonation of delay of present review application 2. 18.03.2019 and in response thereof, learned counsel for HSIIDC had filed reply. 99-CI-2018 (O&M) in/and RFA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH ***** CM CM RA RFA Date of Decision: 1 United Cold Storage and Ice Factory ……. Versus State of Haryana and ors. ..….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul, Advocate for the applicant/ appellant. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms.Surbhi Rana, Advocate for HSIIDC. -.- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 5-CI-2018 Prayer in the present application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, is for condonation of delay of present review application. Notice of the application stands issued vide order dated 18.03.2019 and in response thereof, learned counsel for HSIIDC had filed reply. RFA-4002-2002 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M-2236-CI-2019; CM-3075-CI-2018 IN/AND RA-RF-99-CI-2018 IN/AND RFA-4002-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.02.2026 United Cold Storage and Ice Factory …….Applicant/ Appellant ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with for the applicant/ appellant. Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms.Surbhi Rana, Advocate for HSIIDC. Prayer in the present application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, is for condonation of delay of 855 days in filing the Notice of the application stands issued vide order dated 18.03.2019 and in response thereof, learned counsel for HSIIDC had Prayer in the present application under Section 5 of days in filing the Notice of the application stands issued vide order dated 18.03.2019 and in response thereof, learned counsel for HSIIDC had SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RF-9 3. through the 4. has been filed for seeking review of the order dated 03.11.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, based on order dated 21.11.2016 made in 3520-2006 anr., relating to the same very acquisition proceedings, though pertaining to other landowners. The judgment dated 03.11.2015 was reviewed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with the following modifications: 5. pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to Village Kundli 99-CI-2018 (O&M) in/and RFA I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application Taking into account the fact that the present application has been filed for seeking review of the order dated 03.11.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, based on order dated 21.11.2016 made in Review Application No.173 2006 titled as Bhim Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and , relating to the same very acquisition proceedings, though pertaining to other landowners. The judgment dated 03.11.2015 was reviewed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with the following modifications:- “17. To sum up, it is held that the for the land abutting GT Road upto the depth of 880 feet, the applicants-landowners shall be entitled to compensation @ whereas for the land located beyond that, they shall be entitled to compensat @Rs.14,00,000/ landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.” Therefore, once the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to Kundli to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/ RFA-4002-2002 (O&M) [2] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone contents of the application. count the fact that the present application has been filed for seeking review of the order dated 03.11.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, based on order dated Review Application No.173-CI-2016 in RFA im Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and , relating to the same very acquisition proceedings, though pertaining to other landowners. The judgment dated 03.11.2015 was reviewed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with the following To sum up, it is held that the for the land abutting GT Road upto the depth of 880 feet, landowners shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre, whereas for the land located beyond that, they shall be entitled to compensation 14,00,000/- per acre. The applicants landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.” the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to Rs.20,00,000/- per acre for the land I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone count the fact that the present application has been filed for seeking review of the order dated 03.11.2015 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, based on order dated RFA- im Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and , relating to the same very acquisition proceedings, though pertaining to other landowners. The judgment dated 03.11.2015 was reviewed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court with the following To sum up, it is held that the for the land abutting GT Road upto the depth of 880 feet, landowners shall be entitled to per acre, whereas for the land located beyond that, they ion per acre. The applicants- landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to for the land SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RF-9 abutting GT Road located beyond that, they shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.14,00,000/ this Court in 2006, titled 6. in case the present applicant/ appellant same, as i claim of fair and just compensation. My aforesaid view is also derived from a judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of “Ningappa Thotappa Angadi vs. Special Land Acquisition Office reported as 2020(19) SCC 599 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector and ors 2023 INSC 1016. and paragraph 12 of hereunder: 99-CI-2018 (O&M) in/and RFA abutting GT Road upto the depth of 880 feet located beyond that, they shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.14,00,000/- per acre vide judgment dated 21.11.2016 this Court in Review Application No.173 , titled Bhim Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and anr Thus, considering the principle of parity, in case the present review application filed at the instance of applicant/ appellant is declined on the ground of delay in filing the same, as it would also violate the principles of equity as well as their claim of fair and just compensation. My aforesaid view is also derived from a judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi vs. Special Land Acquisition Office reported as 2020(19) SCC 599” and also in view of the latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohar Singh (Dead) through LRs and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector and ors 2023 INSC 1016. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of and paragraph 12 of Mohar Singh’s hereunder:- “Paragraphs 9 to 11 of 9. The afore-cited view has been consistently followed by this Court in a series of cases before and after the decision in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., 2014 14 SCC 133, it was observed RFA-4002-2002 (O&M) [3] upto the depth of 880 feet, whereas for the land located beyond that, they shall be entitled to compensation @ vide judgment dated 21.11.2016 passed by Review Application No.173-CI-2016 in RFA-3520 Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and anr. Thus, considering the principle of parity, it would be unjust review application filed at the instance of is declined on the ground of delay in filing the t would also violate the principles of equity as well as their claim of fair and just compensation. My aforesaid view is also derived from a judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi vs. Special Land Acquisition Office ” and also in view of the latest decision Mohar Singh (Dead) through LRs and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector and ors., reported as to 11 of Ningappa’s case (supr ’s case (supra) are reproduced Paragraphs 9 to 11 of Ningappa’s case cited view has been consistently followed by this Court in a series of cases before and after the decision in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., 2014 14 SCC 133, it was observed , whereas for the land located beyond that, they shall be entitled to compensation @ passed by 3520- unjust review application filed at the instance of is declined on the ground of delay in filing the t would also violate the principles of equity as well as their claim of fair and just compensation. My aforesaid view is also derived from a judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi vs. Special Land Acquisition Office ” and also in view of the latest decision Mohar Singh (Dead) through LRs and ., reported as case (supra) are reproduced cited view has been consistently followed by this Court in a series of cases before and after the decision in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., 2014 14 SCC 133, it was observed SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RF-99-CI-2018 (O&M) in/and RFA that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition cannot be the reason to deny just and fair compensation to the claimants. This Court observed that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, 2019 SCC Online SC 990 also this Court condoned the delay and restored parity in the matter of grant of compensation though with a condition ‘that for the period of delay in filing and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions, the appellant claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount.’ 10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the High Court and restored the compensation as was awarded by the Reference Court. In the cited case, this Court held as follows: ‘We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some length and car material on record. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and order passed by the Reference Court restored. We say so because, this Court has in a si directed against the very same order set aside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and while setti the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the appellant, restore the judgment and order passed RFA-4002-2002 (O&M) [4] he delay in filing the Special Leave Petition cannot be the reason to deny just and fair compensation to the claimants. This Court observed that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner cquisition Officer, 2019 SCC Online SC 990 also this Court condoned the delay and restored parity in the matter of grant of compensation though with a condition ‘that for the period of delay in filing and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions, the ant claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount.’ 10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. isition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the High Court and restored the compensation as was awarded by the Reference Court. In the cited case, this Court held as follows: ‘We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some length and carefully perused the material on record. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and order passed by the Reference Court restored. We say so because, this Court has in a similar appeal directed against the very same order set aside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the appellant, restore the judgment and order passed he delay in filing the Special Leave Petition cannot be the reason to deny just and fair compensation to the claimants. This Court observed that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner cquisition Officer, 2019 SCC Online SC 990 also this Court condoned the delay and restored parity in the matter of grant of compensation though with a condition ‘that for the period of delay in filing and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions, the ant claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount.’ 10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. isition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the High Court and restored the compensation as was awarded by the Reference ‘We have heard the learned counsel for the efully perused the material on record. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and order passed by the Reference Court restored. We milar appeal directed against the very same order set aside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case. We, ng aside the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the appellant, restore the judgment and order passed SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RF-99-CI-2018 (O&M) in/and RFA by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.’ 11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants. They are, thus, entitled to seek parity and claim the same amount of fair and just compensation as has been awarded to other land owners. The appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this Court.” “Paragraph 12 of Mohar Singh 12. Having heard parties and on perusal we are satisfied that the parity with their compensation for their consistently held in inordinate delay in matters, per se, may equities between the denying the statutory delayed period. We are that the delay in filing condoned subject to would not be entitled delayed period. We appellant’s favour also appeals at the instance pending consideration High Court ought to late-comers was the benefit solatium, under Section the date of passing of till the filing of the first RFA-4002-2002 (O&M) [5] by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, 11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed , thus, entitled to seek parity and claim the same amount of fair and just compensation as has been awarded to other land owners. The appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this Mohar Singh’s case learned Senior Counsel for perusal of the material placed on record, the appellants are entitled to seek co-villagers in the grant their acquired land. This Court has a catena of decisions that filing appeal in compensatory may not be fatal as the rights and parties can be well balanced statutory benefits, such as interest for are thus of the considered opinion filing the first appeal(s) could the condition that the appellants entitled to enure undue benefit for grant such indulgence in also for the reason that a batch of first instance of other land owners was consideration before the High Court. All that have emphatically denied to benefit of interest including on Section 34 of the Act for the period from of the award by the Reference Court first appeals.” by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, 11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed , thus, entitled to seek parity and claim the same amount of fair and just compensation as has been awarded to other land owners. The appellant(s) are, however, not entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this the record, seek of has the compensatory and by the opinion be appellants the the first still the the the from Court SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RF-9 6. application is allowed. D application shall not be entitled to interest for the period for which t approach this Court CM-2236 press the CPC for RA-99-CI through the contents of the review application, the same is allowed in view of the fact that the applicant is entitled for award of similar market value as awarded i landowners pertaining to same acquisition. Order dated 03.11.2015 is hereby recalled and the main appeal is taken up on board today itself. RFA-400 the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to notification dated 99-CI-2018 (O&M) in/and RFA In view of the discussion made hereinabove, application is allowed. Delay of 855 days in filing the application is hereby condoned, however, the shall not be entitled to interest for the period for which t approach this Court. 6-CI-2019 Learned counsel for the e application under Order 41 adducing additional evidence Dismissed as withdrawn. CI-2018 IN RFA-4002-2002 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the review application, the same is allowed in view of the fact that the applicant is entitled for award of similar market value as awarded in favour of other identically placed landowners pertaining to same acquisition. Order dated 03.11.2015 is hereby recalled and the main appeal is taken up on board today itself. 4002-2002(O&M) Both the counsels are ad idem the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to notification dated 24.07.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Act RFA-4002-2002 (O&M) [6] ussion made hereinabove, the days in filing the present review is hereby condoned, however, the applicant/appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the period for which they did not applicant/ appellant does 1 Rule 27 read with Section 1 e. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the review application, the same is allowed in view of the fact that the applicant is entitled for award of similar n favour of other identically placed landowners pertaining to same acquisition. Order dated 03.11.2015 is hereby recalled and the main appeal is taken up on board today itself. ad idem that the issue involved in the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to 24.07.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Act the present review applicant/appellant hey did not not 151 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the review application, the same is allowed in view of the fact that the applicant is entitled for award of similar n favour of other identically placed landowners pertaining to same acquisition. Order dated 03.11.2015 is hereby recalled and the main appeal is taken up on board today itself. that the issue involved in the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to 24.07.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Act is SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RF-9 squarely covered by decision dated Coordinate Bench of this Court in 2016 in Haryana and anr 2. terms of the decision dated 21.11.2016 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in 3. entitled to interest for the period for which Court. 4. disposed of. 19.02.2026 sanjay 99-CI-2018 (O&M) in/and RFA squarely covered by decision dated Coordinate Bench of this Court in Review in RFA-3520-2006, titled Bhim Singh and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and anr. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the decision dated 21.11.2016 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhim Singh’s case (supra). It is, however, made clear that the entitled to interest for the period for which Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .02.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? RFA-4002-2002 (O&M) [7] squarely covered by decision dated 21.11.2016 passed by Review Application No.173- Bhim Singh and ors. Vs. State of In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the decision dated 21.11.2016 passed by a coordinate case (supra). made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the period for which it did not approach this Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No passed by a -CI- Bhim Singh and ors. Vs. State of In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the decision dated 21.11.2016 passed by a coordinate shall not be did not approach this Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) SANJAY GUPTA 2026.02.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document