244 IN TH Smt. Guddi State of Har CORAM: Present: HARKESH CM No. 125 of 352 days vehemently through the pertaining t held entitled the acquire Hayatpur, per acre, in IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date uddi @ Raj Bala Versus of Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Adv for the respondents. **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 125-CI of 2023 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 ning to the same acquisition procee ntitled for the enhanced amount of c cquired land falling in the same re ur, Tehsil & District Gurgaon, to t re, in view of judgment/order dated UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 40 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA ocate ty Advocate General, Haryana plication re:condonation of delay sued on 13.03.2023. 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 to the tune of Rs.3,52,00,000/- ated 27.05.2016 passed by this DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
          -2-     Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 5316 of 2014, titled “Pushpender Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and another”, which was challenged by some landowners and the State Government before the Hon’ble Apex Court and ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 05.09.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 11913-11945 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8094-8126 of 2017), titled “State of Haryana & Anr. Versus Pushpendra Kumar & Ors.”, dismissed the appeals filed by the landowners, while partly allowing the appeals of the State Government by ordering the deduction of 15% towards development. 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 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:- DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
          -3-     “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 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 appellants submits that the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 27.05.2016 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 5316 of 2014, titled “Pushpender Kumar and others DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
          -4-     Versus State of Haryana and another”, which was further modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide decision dated 05.09.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 11913-11945 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8094-8126 of 2017), titled “State of Haryana & Anr. Versus Pushpendra Kumar & Ors.”. [2] Learned counsel for the respondents 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above as well as the facts of the present case, this Court agrees with the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellants. [4] Consequently, the present appeal is disposed off in the same terms as Pushpender Kumar’s case (supra), which was further modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [5] It is further added that the appellants 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.
February 26, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE



 




 



DINESH KUMAR 2026.03.05 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document