[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manphool Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 January, 2026
1 RFA-1286-2021 (O&M) and RFA-1326-2021 (O&M)
147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RFA-1286-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 16, 2026
MANPHOOL SINGH AND ORS ......Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ........Respondents
RFA-1326-2021 (O&M)
RAMESHWAR LAL MEHENDIRATTA (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRS ......Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the appellants in
RFA
RFA-1286-2021.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Maninee, Advocate for the appellants in
RFA
RFA-1326-2021.
Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.
***
HARKESH MANUJA,
MANUJA J. (ORAL)
Vide this common order, the aforesaid two appeals shall
stand disposed of. For convenience, the facts are drawn from RFA
RFA-1286--
2021.
CM-2829-CI-2021
2021 in RFA-1286-2021
RFA
This is an application for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing
the present appeal.
Despite, notice,
notice, no reply has been filed by learned counsel for
the respondents.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the contents of the application. A perusal thereof shows that sufficient cause
is made out for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the appeal,, as such,
the present application is allowed.
allowed
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.17 15:05
I agree to specified portions
of this document
2 RFA-1286-2021 (O&M) and RFA-1326-2021 (O&M)
CM-2828-CI-2021 and RFA-1326-2021
By way of present applications, prayer has been made for
condonatin of delay of 1963 days in refilling the appeal (RFA-1286-2021)
and 1710 days in filing the appeal (RFA-1326-2021) respectively.
2. Learned counsel representing the respondent-State
vehemently opposes the prayer made in the applications having filed
reply to the applications and prays for dismissal of the same.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the contents of the applications.
4. Concededly, the other similarly situated landowners
pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held
entitled for the same amount of compensation as awarded by the learned
Reference Court, Jhajjar i.e. Rs.14,89,052/- per acre along with all
statutory benefits, in view of the judgment dated 27.11.2015 passed by
this Court in RFA No.3192 of 2015 titled as "Ramkala Vs. State of
Haryana and others".
5. Based thereupon, applying the principle of parity, the land
owner/applicant being similarly situated, is entitled for grant of similar
amount of compensation, however except the payment of interest for the
period he failed to approach this Court after the decision of the
Reference Court. 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, 2020(19) SCC 599 and the latest exposition of law laid down in
"Mohar Singh (Dead) thr. LRs and ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Collector and 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 covillagers 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 equities between the parties can be well
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.17 15:05
I agree to specified portions
of this document
3 RFA-1286-2021 (O&M) and RFA-1326-2021 (O&M)
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."
6. Accordingly, in view of the averments made in the application
besides the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment, the same is
allowed and delay of 1963 days in refilling the appeal (RFA-1286-2021)
and 1710 days in filing the appeal (RFA-1326-2021) is hereby condoned.
MAIN CASES
By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to
an order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Jhajjar.
Both the parties are ad idem that the matter is squarely covered
by the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by this Court in RFA No.3192 of 2015
titled as "Ramkala Vs. State of Haryana and Ors." except for the interest
for the delay in filing this appeal.
Disposed of accordingly in the same terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
16.01.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.01.17 15:05
I agree to specified portions
of this document
