RFA-1345 167 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Krishna Rani @ Krishnawanti and ors. State of Haryana and others CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM-3750 of delay of 2. thereto no reply has been filed by the respondents 3. through the contents of the application as well as reply. 4. been expressed in paragraph are extracted hereunder: 1345-2023 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of Decision: 1 RFA No. Krishna Rani @ Krishnawanti and ors. Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners (through VC) Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 3750-CI-2023 Prayer made in the application is for seeking condonation of delay of 1104 days in filing the Regular First Appeal. Notice of the application was issued and in response no reply has been filed by the respondents I have heard learned couns through the contents of the application as well as reply. To seek condonation of delay, following reasons have been expressed in paragraph No.2 of the application and the same extracted hereunder:- “2. That due to acquis of structure of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.01.2026 RFA No. 1345 of 2023 (O&M) Krishna Rani @ Krishnawanti and ors. …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellants/ landowners (through VC) Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana. Prayer made in the application is for seeking condonation in filing the Regular First Appeal. Notice of the application was issued and in response no reply has been filed by the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application as well as reply. To seek condonation of delay, following reasons have of the application and the same That due to acquisition of land and demolition structure of the unit, applicants/appellants Prayer made in the application is for seeking condonation Notice of the application was issued and in response el for the parties and gone To seek condonation of delay, following reasons have of the application and the same of land and demolition unit, applicants/appellants SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.16 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1345 5. pertaining to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide decision dated landowners and thus considering the principle of parity, unjustified in case the present appea landowners 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 Cour Thotappa Angadi vs. Special Land Acquisition Office 2020(19) SCC 599 Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Collector and or 1345-2023 (O&M) [2] suffered huge loss in the business, they were already under the huge debt. Since adequate compensation was not granted, due to the reason that applicants/ appellants were already under the debt, the financial condition of the applicants/appellants got worsened. Therefore, they could not arrange funds to engage counsel for filing the appeal. Now they after managing the necessary affairs, they are in position to file the accompanying same is being filing, however a delay of 1104 days in fling the appeal has occurred, which is neither intentional nor willful rather it was beyond the control of the appellants.” Considering the fact that the amount of compensation ning to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide decision dated 31.08.2022, in case of other similarly situated landowners and thus considering the principle of parity, unjustified in case the present appea owners 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 Cour Thotappa Angadi vs. Special Land Acquisition Office 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 or suffered huge loss in the business, they were already under the huge debt. Since adequate compensation was not granted, due to the reason that applicants/ appellants were already debt, the financial condition of the applicants/appellants got worsened. Therefore, they could not arrange funds to engage counsel for filing the appeal. Now they after managing the necessary affairs, they are in position to file the accompanying appeal and same is being filing, however a delay of 1104 days in fling the appeal has occurred, which is neither intentional nor willful rather it was beyond the control of the appellants.” Considering the fact that the amount of compensation ning to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide , in case of other similarly situated landowners and thus considering the principle of parity, it would be unjustified in case the present appeal filed at the instance of owners 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 ” and also in view of the latest decision of Hon’ble Mohar Singh (Dead) through LRs and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector and ors., reported as 2023 INSC suffered huge loss in the business, they were already under the huge debt. Since adequate compensation was not granted, due to the reason that applicants/ appellants were already debt, the financial condition of the applicants/appellants got worsened. Therefore, they could not arrange funds to engage counsel for filing the appeal. Now they after managing the necessary affairs, they are in appeal and same is being filing, however a delay of 1104 days in fling the appeal has occurred, which is neither intentional nor willful rather it was Considering the fact that the amount of compensation ning to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide , in case of other similarly situated it would be e of owners 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 Ningappa reported as ” and also in view of the latest decision of Hon’ble Mohar Singh (Dead) through LRs and ors. Vs. ., reported as 2023 INSC SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.16 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1345 1016. Paragraphs 9 12 of Mohar Singh 1345-2023 (O&M) [3] Paragraphs 9 to 11 of Ningappa Mohar Singh’s case (supra) are reproduced 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 that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition cannot be the rea 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 cond 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 Cou 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 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 Ningappa’s case (supra) and paragraph are reproduced hereunder:- Paragraphs 9 to 11 of Ningappa’s case cited view has been consistently 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 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 hanced 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 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 and paragraph cited view has been consistently 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 that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition son 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 oned 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 hanced 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 rt and restored the compensation as was awarded by the Reference ‘We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some length and carefully perused the 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 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.16 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1345 1345-2023 (O&M) [4] 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 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 fa 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 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 he appellant, restore the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, 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 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 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 he appellant, restore the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, 11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed claimants. They are, thus, entitled to seek parity and ir 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 SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.16 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1345 6. application is allowed. D hereby condoned, however, the appellants shall not be enti seek interest for the period for which t MAIN CASE the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to notification dated squarely covered by decision dated coordinate Bench of Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others. 2. terms of the judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in 3. entitled to seek in this Court. 4. 1345-2023 (O&M) [5] 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 In view of the discussion made hereinabove, application is allowed. Delay of 1104 hereby condoned, however, the appellants shall not be enti seek interest for the period for which t MAIN CASE: Both the counsels are ad idem the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to notification dated 23.08.2010 issued under S squarely covered by decision dated coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Natha Singh’s It is, however, made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this Court. Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have 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.” In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the 1104 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, however, the appellants shall not be entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this Court. ad idem that the issue involved in the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to 23.08.2010 issued under Section 4 of the Act squarely covered by decision dated 31.08.2022 rendered by RFA- 2349-2018 titled as Natha Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by a coordinate Natha Singh’s case (supra). made clear that the appellants shall not be terest for the period for which they did not approach Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have still the the the from Court the days in filing the appeal is tled to hey did not approach this Court. that the issue involved in the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to ection 4 of the Act is rendered by a Natha In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by a coordinate made clear that the appellants shall not be terest for the period for which they did not approach Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.16 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA-1345 unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. 5. disposed of. 14.01.2026 sanjay 1345-2023 (O&M) [6] unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate application(s) before the learned Executing Court. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.01.16 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document