Punjab-Haryana High Court
Attar Singh And Ors vs St. Of Hy. And Ors on 27 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CMs-6168 to 6170-CI-2019 and
RA-RF-86-2019 in
RSA-550-2005
Attar Singh (since deceased)
through his LRs and another
. . . . Applicant-Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
. . . . Respondents
****
Reserved on: 26.11.2025
Pronounced on: 27.11.2025
Uploaded on: 27.11.2025
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Argued by: - Mr. Vicky Chauhan, Advocate, for
Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants.
Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present order disposes of three applications as well as the
review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, arising out of RSA-550-2005.
2. The first two applications, CM-6169-CI-2019 and CM-6170-CI-
2019, have been filed under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record the
legal representatives of appellant No.1 - Attar Singh, who expired on
19.10.2006, and appellant No.3 - Ran Singh, who expired on 06.01.2008. The
particulars of their respective legal representatives have been mentioned in
detail in the applications. Both applications are duly supported by affidavits of
Narender Kumar, son of the deceased appellants. Since there is no contest on
the correctness of the particulars supplied, both the applications are allowed,
subject to all just and legal exceptions. The amended memo of parties is
taken on record.
1 of 5
CMs-6168 to 6170-CI-2019 and 2025:PHHC:164109
RA-RF-86-2019 in
RSA-550-2005
3. The substantive matter arises out of the compulsory acquisition
of land situated in the revenue estate of Bahadurgarh, Hadbast No.38,
acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 12.05.1995 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by the declaration
issued on 10.05.1996. The acquisition was for development and utilization of
land as a residential and commercial area in Sectors 9 and 9-A, Bahadurgarh.
The Land Acquisition Collector, by Award No.1 dated 24.04.1998, assessed
the market value of the land at different rates depending upon its location
and nature. The Reference Court, in the proceedings under Section 18 of the
Act, granted a uniform enhancement of ₹50,000/- per acre of all categories.
4. Appeals were thereafter filed both by the landowners and by the
State. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in a bunch of appeals led by RFA-1-
2006, titled State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh, decided on 10.02.2009, re-
assessed the market value at three slab rates depending upon the depth of
land from the main roads. The matter travelled to Hon'ble Supreme Court at
the instance of several landowners. Vide judgment dated 18.09.2013 in Roop
Chand and another v. State of Haryana [CA Nos. 6837-6851 of 2009], the
appeals were allowed and the matters were remanded to this Court for fresh
determination.
5. After remand, a Co-ordinate Bench, in the leading case RFA-8-
2005 Devinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana, decided on 31.08.2015,
undertook a fresh assessment and determined the market value of the
acquired lands by further enhancing compensation depending on the nature
and location of the land. It is not in dispute that RFA-550-2005, filed by the
present appellants, was disposed of on 17.11.2015 strictly in terms of
Devinder Singh and others (supra), and that the said order was not
challenged by the State before Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Some other landowners, however, pursued the matter before
Hon'ble Supreme Court, and their appeals were decided in a bunch of cases
led by Civil Appeal No.19354 of 2017, titled Rajender Singh and others v.
State of Haryana, decided on 17.11.2017. Vide the said judgment, Hon'ble
2 of 5
CMs-6168 to 6170-CI-2019 and 2025:PHHC:164109
RA-RF-86-2019 in
RSA-550-2005
Supreme Court further enhanced the market value of the land situated in
Bahadurgarh to ₹20,00,000/- per acre; and for other neighbouring villages
namely, Bir Barkatbad, Balore and Sarai Aurangabad to ₹15,00,000/- per acre.
7. It is on the strength of this later judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been
filed, praying that the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by this Court be
reviewed so that the appellants may also be granted the same enhanced
compensation on the principle of parity.
8. Along with the review petition, CM-6168-CI-2019 has also been
filed seeking condonation of delay of 1260 days.
9. The State opposes the application for condonation of delay by
contending that the appellants, not having themselves approached Hon'ble
Supreme Court, cannot be allowed to reap the benefit of the enhancement
granted in favour of other landowners and that such a belated request, after
more than three years, deserves no indulgence by this court.
10. This Court has considered the submissions made by both sides.
11. It is fairly conceded on behalf of the State that similarly situated
landowners, whose lands were acquired under the same notification, and
who were parties to the same bunch of appeals, have already been held
entitled to enhanced compensation first in Devinder Singh's case (supra) and
thereafter, in Rajender Singh's case (supra). It is also not denied that the
lands of the present appellants form part of the very same acquisition.
12. In matters concerning compulsory acquisition of land, the law on
condonation of delay has been firmly crystallised by a consistent line of
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Beginning with the celebrated judgment
in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anant Nag & Nr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, (1987)
2 SCC 107, Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a justice-oriented
and liberal approach must be adopted while considering delay applications,
especially where valuable property rights of landowners are at stake. The
Court has cautioned that technicalities should not be allowed to defeat
3 of 5
CMs-6168 to 6170-CI-2019 and 2025:PHHC:164109
RA-RF-86-2019 in
RSA-550-2005
substantial justice, and that a litigant does not ordinarily stand to benefit by
lodging his claim belatedly.
13. In Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
(2014) 14 SCC 127; and in Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari &
Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 311, long delays, running into several thousand days, were
condoned precisely to maintain parity between similarly situated landowners.
Likewise, in Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner & LAO, (2020) 19 SCC
234, while condoning long delays, Hon'ble Supreme Court balanced the
equities by denying interest for the delayed period. The constitutional
dimension of the right to just compensation under Article 300-A has been
emphasised in Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2022
SCC Online SC 1408, read with Coffee Board, Karnataka v. Commissioner of
Commercial Tax, (1988) 3 SCC 263, which underscores that deprivation of
private property must always be accompanied by fairness and just
compensation. The most recent reiteration of these principles is found in
Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2025 INSC 550), where Hon'ble
Supreme Court reiterated that delay alone cannot deprive a landowner of
compensation that is otherwise lawfully due.
14. Applying these principles, it is evident that the delay in the
present case cannot be viewed as deliberate or mala fide. If the delay is not
condoned, it would create a wholly anomalous situation, where landowners
from the same acquisition would receive different compensation for identical
lands, thereby offending the principles of fairness, parity and equality, which
form the backbone of land acquisition jurisprudence. The only permissible
way to balance equities, as recognised repeatedly by Hon'ble Supreme Court,
is to deny interest for the period of delay, which the appellants have already
agreed to bear.
15. In view of the above discussion, the delay of 1260 days in filing
the review petition deserves to be and is hereby condoned, subject to the
condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to any interest on the
enhanced compensation for the said period of delay.
4 of 5
CMs-6168 to 6170-CI-2019 and 2025:PHHC:164109
RA-RF-86-2019 in
RSA-550-2005
16. Turning now to the merits of the review application, it is not
disputed that the land of the appellants is governed by the same set of
notifications under Sections 4 and 6, the same award, the same reference
proceedings, and the same adjudications by this Court, which culminated in
the judgment in Devinder Singh and others (supra). The State has fairly
conceded that the judgment in Devinder Singh, which formed the basis of the
order dated 17.11.2015 in the appellants' appeal, has attained finality. Once
Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in Rajender Singh (supra), enhanced the
compensation for land situated in Bahadurgarh to ₹20,00,000/- per acre; and
for other neighbouring villages namely, Bir Barkatbad, Balore and Sarai
Aurangabad to ₹15,00,000/- per acre, there is no justification for denying the
same benefit to the present appellants, particularly when their land forms
part of the same acquisition.
17. In the circumstances, the review petition deserves to be allowed.
The appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation in terms of order
Dated 17.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No.19354 of 2017, titled Rajender Singh and
others v. State of Haryana, along with all statutory benefits admissible under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, except that they shall not be entitled to
interest for the delayed period of 1260 days, in terms of the order passed
hereinabove while condoning the delay.
18. The appeal is accordingly allowed in these terms, and the review
petition stands disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
27.11.2025 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
5 of 5
