RFA-39-2024 (O&M) 286(2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Karnail Singh Union of India and ors. CORAM: Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CMs-98- Karnail Singh and appellant No.2 prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicant para 2 of the application legal representative appellant No.2 appeal. 2024 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 RFA No. Karnail Singh (deceased) through LRs Versus Union of India and ors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. G.P.S. Pathania, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Vibhor Bansal, Senior Panel counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. --- HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) -99-CI-2024 Applications for impleading the LRs Karnail Singh and appellant No.2-Jarnail Singh prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicant para 2 of the applications are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of LRs of appel appellant No.2-Jarnail Singh, respectively Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 RFA No. 39 of 2024 (O&M) (deceased) through LRs and ors. …….Appellants Versus ..….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. G.P.S. Pathania, Advocate Mr.Vibhor Bansal, Senior Panel counsel for impleading the LRs of appellant No.1 Jarnail Singh are allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. The applicants mentioned in ordered to be brought on record as LRs of appellant No.1-Karnail Singh and Jarnail Singh, respectively, to pursue the present Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. No.1- allowed, as mentioned in ordered to be brought on record as Karnail Singh and to pursue the present MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.30 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-39-2024 (O&M) CM-97-CI of delay of 2. thereto reply has been filed by the respondents. 3. through the contents of the application as well as reply. 4. been expressed in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of the application and the same are extracted hereunder: 2024 (O&M) [2] CI-2024 Prayer made in the application is for seeking condonation of delay of 5280 days in filing the Regular First Appeal. Notice of the application was issued and in response thereto reply has been filed by the respondents. I have heard learned counsel through the contents of the application as well as reply. To seek condonation of delay, following reasons have been expressed in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of the application and the same are extracted hereunder:- “2. That the appellants filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation with regard to the land for which the compensation was inadequately assessed by the respondents. The Ld. Reference court decided the refere of the applicants enhanced very meager amount of compensation. 3. That the applicants services of Advocate at Gurdaspur and he informed accordingly the decision of the case. The land of the acquired and even the Collector has given very meager amount of compensation to the applicants/ appellants. The applicants/appellants are very poor persons and have lost their land in the compulsory acquisition of land by the Defe Prayer made in the application is for seeking condonation in filing the Regular First Appeal. Notice of the application was issued and in response thereto 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 been expressed in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of the application and the That the appellants filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation with regard to the land for which the compensation was inadequately assessed by the respondents. The Ld. Reference court decided the reference of the applicants-appellants on 16.05.2007 and enhanced very meager amount of That the applicants-appellants engaged the services of Advocate at Gurdaspur and he informed accordingly the decision of the case. The land of the applicants/appellants was acquired and even the Collector has given very meager amount of compensation to the applicants/ appellants. The applicants/appellants are very poor persons and have lost their land in the compulsory acquisition of land by the Defence of India. Prayer made in the application is for seeking condonation Notice of the application was issued and in response for the parties and gone To seek condonation of delay, following reasons have been expressed in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 of the application and the That the appellants filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation with regard to the land for which the compensation was inadequately assessed by the respondents. nce and enhanced very meager amount of appellants engaged the services of Advocate at Gurdaspur and he informed accordingly the decision of the case. applicants/appellants was acquired and even the Collector has given very meager amount of compensation to the applicants/ appellants. The applicants/appellants are very poor persons and have lost their land in the compulsory MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.30 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-39-2024 (O&M) 5. pertaining to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide decision dated 17.02.2016 passed in Union of India and another Vs. Major Prita in case of other similarly situated landowners and thus considering the principle of parity, appeal filed at the instance of land 2024 (O&M) [3] 4. That the applicants/appellants came to know about the similar appeals decided by this Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.2902 of 1999 Union of India and others Versus Major Pritam Singh and others of the same notification. This Hon'ble Court has of the similar acquisition to the tune of Rs.2300/- per marla uniform rate for all kinds of land. The appellants could not file the appeal due to paucity of funds as the land has been taken away and the Collector has granted very lesser amount and the appellants could not filed the appeal due to the reason that the funds were not available with the appellants. 5. That the applicants/appellants are very poor person and could not file the appeal in time due to paucity of funds as th the compensation immediately and whatever has been paid that was the applicants/appellant could not even able to file the appeals as they have to construct houses and to meet other expenses and needed money for t Considering the fact that the amount of compensation pertaining to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide decision dated 17.02.2016 passed in Union of India and another Vs. Major Prita in case of other similarly situated landowners and thus considering the principle of parity, it would be unjustified in case the present l filed at the instance of landowners is declined on the ground That the applicants/appellants came to know about the similar appeals decided by this Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.2902 of 1999 Union of India and others Versus Major Pritam Singh and others of the same notification. This Hon'ble Court has enhanced the compensation of the similar acquisition to the tune of per marla uniform rate for all kinds of land. The appellants could not file the appeal due to paucity of funds as the land has been taken away and the Collector has granted very lesser amount and the appellants could not filed the appeal due to the reason that the funds were not available with the appellants. That the applicants/appellants are very poor person and could not file the appeal in time due to paucity of funds as they were not even paid the compensation immediately and whatever has been paid that was so meager amount that the applicants/appellant could not even able to file the appeals as they have to construct houses and to meet other expenses and needed money for their livelihood.” Considering the fact that the amount of compensation pertaining to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide decision dated 17.02.2016 passed in RFA No.2902 of 1999, titled as Union of India and another Vs. Major Pritam Singh and another in case of other similarly situated landowners and thus considering it would be unjustified in case the present owners is declined on the ground That the applicants/appellants came to know about the similar appeals decided by this Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.2902 of 1999 Union of India and others Versus Major Pritam Singh and others of the same notification. This enhanced the compensation of the similar acquisition to the tune of per marla uniform rate for all kinds of land. The appellants could not file the appeal due to paucity of funds as the land has been taken away and the Collector has granted very lesser amount and the appellants could not filed the appeal due to the reason that the That the applicants/appellants are very poor person and could not file the appeal in time due ey were not even paid the compensation immediately and whatever meager amount that the applicants/appellant could not even able to file the appeals as they have to construct houses and to meet other expenses and Considering the fact that the amount of compensation pertaining to this very acquisition stands enhanced by this Court vide , titled as m Singh and another, in case of other similarly situated landowners and thus considering it would be unjustified in case the present owners is declined on the ground MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.30 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-39-2024 (O&M) of delay in filing the same, equity as well as their claim of fair and just compensation. My aforesaid view is also derived from a judgment passed by Apex Court in case of “ Land Acquisition Off view of the latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Dead) through LRs and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector and ors Ningappa (supra) are reproduced hereunder: 2024 (O&M) [4] 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 Apex Court in case of “Ningappa Thotappa Angadi vs. Special Land Acquisition Office reported as 2020(19) SCC 599 view of the latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Dead) through LRs and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector and ors., reported as 2023 INSC 1016. Ningappa’s case (supra) and paragraph 12 of 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 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 interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount.’ 10. It is undeniable that this Court vide 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 the Hon’ble Ningappa Thotappa Angadi vs. Special reported as 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 ., reported as 2023 INSC 1016. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of and paragraph 12 of Mohar Singh’s case Paragraphs 9 to 11 of Ningappa’s case 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 he 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 cquisition 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 ant claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount.’ 10. It is undeniable that this Court vide as it would also violate the principles of equity as well as their claim of fair and just compensation. My Hon’ble Ningappa Thotappa Angadi vs. Special ” and also in Mohar Singh (Dead) through LRs and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector to 11 of case 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 he 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 cquisition 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 ant claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount.’ 10. It is undeniable that this Court vide MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.30 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-39-2024 (O&M) 2024 (O&M) [5] 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 car 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 say so because, this Court has in a si 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 setti 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 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 Court.” “Paragraph 12 of Mohar Singh 12. Having heard parties and on perusal we are satisfied that the parity with their judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. isition 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 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, 11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed , 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 judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. isition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the High Court and restored the compensation as was awarded by the Reference ‘We have heard the learned counsel for the efully 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 milar 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, ng 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, 11. The appellant(s) are also similarly placed , 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 the record, seek of MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.30 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-39-2024 (O&M) 6. application is allowed. D hereby condoned, however, the appellants entitled to seek interest for the period for which t this Court. MAIN CAS the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to notification dated squarely covered by decision dated 2024 (O&M) [6] 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 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 5280 hereby condoned, however, the appellants entitled to seek interest for the period for which t this Court. MAIN CASE: Both the counsels are ad idem the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to notification dated 22.02.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act squarely covered by decision dated 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 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.” cussion made hereinabove, the 5280 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, however, the appellants/landowners shall not be entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach ad idem that the issue involved in the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to 22.02.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act squarely covered by decision dated 17.02.2016 passed in RFA has the compensatory and by the opinion be appellants the the first still the the the from Court the days in filing the appeal is shall not be hey did not approach that the issue involved in the present appeal which relates to acquisition pertaining to 22.02.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act is RFA MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.30 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt RFA-39-2024 (O&M) No.2902 Pritam Singh and another held entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.2300/ under Section 4 of the Act, besides all other statutory benefits available to them 2. terms of the judgment dated Singh’s 3. entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach this Court. 4. 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 20.03.2026 sanjay 2024 (O&M) [7] No.2902 of 1999, titled as Union of India and another Vs. Major Pritam Singh and another, whereby appellants/landowners were held entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.2300/- per marla from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, besides all other statutory benefits available to them under the relevant provisions of the Act. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 17.02.2016 passed in ’s case (supra). 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 unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross of 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. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20.03.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? Union of India and another Vs. Major whereby appellants/landowners were held entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land at per marla from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, besides all other statutory benefits under the relevant provisions of the Act. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in 17.02.2016 passed in Major Pritam made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/ cross-objection(s) after filing of 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. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Yes/No Union of India and another Vs. Major whereby appellants/landowners were held entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land at per marla from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, besides all other statutory benefits In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of in Major Pritam made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled to seek interest for the period for which they did not approach Further, wherever, the landowner(s) has/have objection(s) after filing of and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.30 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt