IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) CM-3981-CI-2019 in/and RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) Paras Ram (deceased) through LR and another . . . . Appellants vs. State of Haryana and others . . . . Respondents * * * * (ii) CM-4039-CI-2019 in/and RFA-1668-2019 (O&M) Sanjay . . . . Appellant vs. The Land Acquision Collector and others . . . . Respondents Reserved on: January 19, 2026 Pronounced on: January 21, 2026 Pronounced fully/opera;ve part : Fully * * * * CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Ms. Kamlesh Khatri, Advocate for the appellants in both the appeals (Through Video Conferencing). Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. These two appeals arise out of the award passed by the Reference Court under Secon 18 of the Land Acquision Act, 1894 in respect of compulsory acquision of land situated in the revenue estate of village Raipur, District Sonipat. 2. The land in queson was acquired by the State of Haryana vide noﬁcaon dated 15.06.2006 issued under Secon 4 of the Act, followed by SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:008045 RFA-1668-2019 (O&M) noﬁcaon dated 14.06.2007 under Secon 6, for the public purpose of development of residenal and commercial Sectors 9 and 18, Sonipat. 3. The Land Acquision Collector, vide Award No.19 dated 12.06.2009, assessed the market value of the acquired land at ₹35,00,000/- per acre along with statutory beneﬁts. Dissasﬁed, various landowners including the present appellants sought references under Secon 18 of the Act. The Reference Court enhanced the compensaon to ₹52,25,000/- per acre besides statutory beneﬁts. 4. Several landowners challenged the said award before this Court. The appeals of other landowners were decided on 20.11.2015 and were dismissed. At that stage, the present appellants had not ﬁled the appeals. 5. The landowners, whose appeals were dismissed, therea:er approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 22.11.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.19693–19708 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4914–4929 of 2016) tled Samunder and others v. The State of Haryana and others, further enhanced the market value to ₹60,92,400/- per acre along with all statutory beneﬁts. 6. It is only a:er the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present appellants approached this Court seeking enhancement of compensaon on the ground of parity. Their appeals, however, were ﬁled with substanal delay. RFA No.1621 of 2019 is accompanied by an applicaon seeking condonaon of delay of 1919 days in ﬁling and 147 days in re-ﬁling. RFA No.1668 of 2019 is accompanied by applicaons seeking condonaon of delay of 230 days in ﬁling and 300 days in re-ﬁling. 7. The applicaons to condone the delay in reﬁling were allowed by this court on 01.08.2019. 8. The State has opposed the applicaons for condonaon of delay in ﬁling the appeals, contending that the appellants, having chosen not to pursue their remedy earlier and not having approached the Hon’ble Supreme SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:008045 RFA-1668-2019 (O&M) Court, cannot be permiAed to claim the beneﬁt of enhancement granted to other landowners a:er a lapse of several years. 9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the pares. 10. It is not disputed that the land of the present appellants forms part of the same acquision, governed by the same noﬁcaons under Secons 4 and 6 of the Act, the same award of the Land Acquision Collector, and the same reference proceedings. It is also fairly conceded by the State that similarly situated landowners from the same acquision have already been granted enhanced compensaon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The principles governing condonaon of delay in land acquision maAers are no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, beginning with Collector, Land Acquision, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Kaji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, has consistently held that a liberal and jusce- oriented approach is required while dealing with delay applicaons, parcularly in maAers involving deprivaon of land under compulsory acquision. The Court has emphasised that technical consideraons must not override substanal jusce and that a landowner does not ordinarily stand to gain by approaching the Court belatedly. 12. In Dhiraj Singh (dead) through Lrs and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 127, and Market Commi-ee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari and Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 311, even delays running into several thousand days were condoned to maintain parity among landowners whose lands were acquired under the same noﬁcaon. In Huchanagouda(s) v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquision Oﬃcer, (2020) 19 SCC 234, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while condoning long delay, balanced equies by denying interest for the delayed period. The constuonal underpinning of the right to just compensaon under Arcle 300-A of the Constuon has been reiterated in M/s Delhi AirTech Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408, holding that deprivaon of property must always be accompanied by fairness and adequacy of compensaon. Page 3 of 5 SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:008045 RFA-1668-2019 (O&M) 13. Most recently, in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (2025 INSC 550), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaﬃrmed that delay by itself cannot be a ground to deny a landowner compensaon that is otherwise lawfully payable, parcularly when denial would result in discriminatory treatment among similarly situated persons. 14. Applying these seAled principles, this Court is of the considered view that the delay in ﬁling the present appeals cannot be characterised as deliberate or lacking in bona ﬁdes. Refusal to condone the delay would lead to an anomalous and inequitable situaon, where landowners whose lands were acquired under the same noﬁcaon would receive diﬀerent compensaon, thereby oﬀending the principles of equality and parity, which lie at the heart of land acquision jurisprudence. The balance of equies can be appropriately maintained by denying interest for the period of delay, which course has been consistently approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has also been accepted by the appellants. 15. Accordingly, the delay of 1919 days in ﬁling RFA No.1621 of 2019; and 230 days in ﬁling RFA No.1668 of 2019 is condoned, subject to the condion that the appellants shall not be entled to interest on the enhanced compensaon for the said period of delay. 16. On merits, once the delay is condoned, the issue stands concluded in view of the binding judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is undisputed that the acquision in queson, the nature of land, the potenality, and the surrounding circumstances are idencal to those considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samunder and others vs. The State of Haryana and others (supra). Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensaon for land arising out of the same acquision, denial of the same beneﬁt to the present appellants would be wholly unjusﬁed. 17. In the circumstances, both the appeals are allowed. The appellants shall be entled to enhanced compensaon in terms of the judgment dated 22.11.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:008045 RFA-1668-2019 (O&M) Appeal Nos.19693–19708 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4914–4929 of 2016) tled Samunder and others v. The State of Haryana and others,, along with all statutory beneﬁts admissible under the Land Acquision Act, 1894. However, they shall not be entled to interest on the enhanced compensaon for the delayed period of 1919 days in RFA No.1621 of 2019, and 230 days in RFA No.1668 of 2019. 18. The appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the connected case ﬁle. January 21, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on: January 21, 2026 SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

PARAS RAM (DECEASED) THRO LR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Judgment text