322 IN TH Gurnam Sin State of Har CORAM: Present: HARKESH CM No. 313 delay of 243 the respond application. through the pertaining t held entitled IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RFA Date m Singh Versus of Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAR Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Adv for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advoca for respondent No. 4-HSIIDC. **** KESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 313-CI of 2024 Prayer in the present applica 2434 days in filing the appeal. Notice of the application was is No reply has been filed; howe spondent(s) vehemently oppose(s ation. 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 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH RFA No. 115 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.01.2026 ...Appellant ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA vocate ty Advocate General, Haryana dvocate IIDC. pplication is for condonation of was issued on 30.07.2024. however, learned counsel(s) for s) the prayer made in the ounsel for the parties and gone similarly situated landowners proceedings have already been nt of compensation pertaining to DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.16 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
         -2-     the acquired land falling in the same revenue estate, i.e. Village Alipur, Tehsil and District Panchkula, to the tune of Rs. 54,50,000/- per acre, in view of judgment/order dated 24.11.2021 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeal, lead case of which was RFA No. 4676 of 2017, titled “Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (now Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited) Versus Dhani Ram and others”. 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 DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.16 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
         -3-     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, as mentioned above, is hereby condoned. However, the applicant shall not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal. MAIN APPEAL At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA No. 4676 of 2017, titled “Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (now Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited) Versus Dhani Ram and others”, whereby the market value of the land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 54,50,000/- per acre acquired vide notification dated 15.12.2008 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.16 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
         -4-     [2] On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent-HSIIDC are not in a position to controvert the above factual position. [3] After going through the judgment passed in Dhani Ram’s case (supra) as well as the present case, this Court agrees with the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant. [4] Consequently, the present appeal is disposed off in the same terms as Dhani Ram’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.
January 15, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) ‘dk kamra’ JUDGE




 




 



DINESH KUMAR 2026.01.16 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document