383 IN TH Surinder Ka State of Pun CORAM: Present: HARKESH CM No. 330 of 711 days vehemently through the pertaining t held entitled the acquire Hoshiarpur IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date er Kaur Versus Punjab and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Nitish Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Additional A for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2-GM **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 3301-CI of 2022 Notice of the instant applicatio days in filing the appeal was issued No reply has been filed, howe ently opposes the prayer made in th I have heard learned counse h the contents of the application. Concededly, the other simi ing to the same acquisition procee ntitled for the enhanced amount of c cquired land falling in the same re rpur, Tehsil Kharar, District UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 1266 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA cate ional Advocate General, Punjab GMADA. plication re:condonation of delay sued on 29.09.2023. however, learned State Counsel in the application. ounsel for the parties and gone similarly situated landowners proceedings have already been nt of compensation pertaining to me revenue estate, i.e. Village ict Mohali, to the tune of DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.22 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
         -2-     Rs.4,15,59,750/- per acre, in view of judgment/order dated 18.02.2026 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 3096 of 2017, titled “Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), through its Estate Officer Versus Arminderjit Kaur and another”. Based thereupon and applying the principle of parity, besides grant of just and fair compensation, the landowner/applicant being similarly situated is 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 Hon’ble 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 delayed period. We are thus of the considered opinion DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.22 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
         -3-     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-appellant shall not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. MAIN APPEAL Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 18.02.2026 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 3096 of 2017, titled “Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), through its Estate Officer Versus Arminderjit Kaur and another”. [2] Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Punjab is not in a position to controvert the above factual position. [3] After going through the judgment passed by this Court as well as the facts of the present case, this Court agrees with the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant. DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.22 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
         -4-     [4] Consequently, the present appeal is disposed off in the same terms as Arminderjit Kaur’s case (supra). [5] It is further added that the appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. [6] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
May 19, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE



 




 



DINESH KUMAR 2026.05.22 09:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document