IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 133 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 1. RFA-1089-2026 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Appellants Versus SHEELA DEVI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER ...Respondents 2. RFA-1090-2026 (O&M) STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Appellants Versus SOHAN LAL AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Abhinash Jain, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the appellants **** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with the consent of State Counsel, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from RFA-1089-2026. 2. The appellant-State through instant appeal under section 74 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (for short ‘2013 Act’) is seeking modification of award dated 07.11.2025 whereby learned Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority- cum-Additional District Judge, Bhiwani (hereinafter called as ‘Authority’) has enhanced amount of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘Collector’). DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.16 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1089-2026 and RFA-1090-2026 -2- 3. The State Government issued notification dated 19.09.2013 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) for acquisition of 17.79 acres of land situated within District Bhiwani with intent to construct Link Drain. The said notification was followed by notification dated 01.08.2014 issued under Section 6 of 1894 Act. 4. The Collector vide Award dated 29.07.2016, in terms of provisions of 2013 Act, determined compensation payable to landowners. Market value of the acquired land was determined as ₹15 Lakh per acre. Landowners were held entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. Feeling dis-satisfied from aforesaid award, landowners preferred petitions before the Collector which were referred to Authority under Section 64 of the 2013 Act. The Authority while appreciating evidence led by both sides, partly allowed the claim of the landowners. The State is in appeal before this Court. 5. The appellant-State has filed appeal along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 152 days in filing appeal. The impugned award was passed under Section 64 of 2013 Act. The appeal is filed under Section 74 of 2013 Act. Section 74 of 2013 Act reads as:- “74. Appeal to High Court.–(1) The Requiring Body or any person aggrieved by the Award passed by an Authority under section 69 may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of Award: Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. (2) Every appeal referred to under sub-section (1) shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to dispose of such appeal within six months from the date on which the appeal is presented to the High Court.” DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.16 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1089-2026 and RFA-1090-2026 -3- 6. From the perusal of proviso to Section 74(1) it is evident that High Court has power to condone delay, however, is vested with power to condone delay upto 60 days. Requiring Body or any person aggrieved by award may file appeal within 60 days and High Court may condone delay of further 60 days, meaning thereby, appeal cannot be entertained beyond 120 days from the date of award. 7. Faced with proviso to Section 74(1), learned State Counsel submits that notification under Section 4 was issued prior to coming into force 2013 Act. The award was passed after 01.01.2014 accordingly compensation was determined under 2013 Act. Reference to authority was made under Section 64 of 2013 Act, accordingly, appeal was filed under Section 74 of 2013 Act. This Court may consider present appeal under repealed Act i.e. 1894 Act. 8. Indubitably, in view of Section 24(1)(a) of 2013 Act, compensation was determined under 2013 Act. Section 114 of 2013 Act repealed 1894 Act. As 1894 Act stood repealed w.e.f. 01.01.2014, procedure prescribed under new Act was followed. The reference was made under Section 64 of 2013 Act as well as appeals have been filed under Section 74 of 2013 Act. The question of delay has to be examined as per Section 74 of 2013 Act because appeal is filed under said Section, therefore, contention of learned State Counsel that application seeking condonation of delay may be examined as per provisions of repealed Act, is hereby rejected. 9. There are many enactments where there is provision identical to proviso to Section 74(1). The Courts time and again have formed an opinion that in the absence of power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period, Appellate Court cannot condone delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Gujarat DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.16 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RFA-1089-2026 and RFA-1090-2026 -4- Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 42 adverted to the statutory appeal under Section 125 of Electricity Act, 2003 which was filed after 71 days from the period prescribed for filing appeal. While interpreting proviso to Section 125 of Electricity Act, Supreme Court has held that maximum time limit for condoning delay is 60 days and appeal has been filed with delay of 71 days and this Court cannot condone delay beyond 60 days. 10. From the aforecited judgment of Supreme Court, it is evident that this Court cannot condone delay beyond 60 days. In the case in hand, the appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 152 days. 11. In the backdrop, the applications seeking condonation of delay are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, appeals stand dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE January 15, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.16 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment