Paras Ram (Deceased) Thro Lr And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 January, 2026

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(i)                                            CM-3981-CI-2019 in/and
                                               RFA-1621-2019 (O&M)

Paras Ram (deceased) through LR and another                   . . . . Appellants

                                               vs.

State of Haryana and others                                   . . . . Respondents

                                 ****
(ii)                                           CM-4039-CI-2019 in/and
                                               RFA-1668-2019 (O&M)

Sanjay                                                        . . . . Appellant

                                               vs.

The Land Acquisi on Collector and others                      . . . . Respondents

                          Reserved on: January 19, 2026
                         Pronounced on: January 21, 2026
                       Pronounced fully/opera;ve part : Fully
                               ****
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA


Argued By:- Ms. Kamlesh Khatri, Advocate
            for the appellants in both the appeals
            (Through Video Conferencing).

             Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

These two appeals arise out of the award passed by the Reference Court under Sec on 18 of the Land Acquisi on Act, 1894 in respect of compulsory acquisi on of land situated in the revenue estate of village Raipur, District Sonipat.

2. The land in ques on was acquired by the State of Haryana vide no ﬁca on dated 15.06.2006 issued under Sec on 4 of the Act, followed by

1 of 5

RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:008045 RFA-1668-2019 (O&M)

no ﬁca on dated 14.06.2007 under Sec on 6, for the public purpose of development of residen al and commercial Sectors 9 and 18, Sonipat.

3. The Land Acquisi on Collector, vide Award No.19 dated 12.06.2009, assessed the market value of the acquired land at ₹35,00,000/- per acre along with statutory beneﬁts. Dissa sﬁed, various landowners including the present appellants sought references under Sec on 18 of the Act. The Reference Court enhanced the compensa on to ₹52,25,000/- per acre besides statutory beneﬁts.

4. Several landowners challenged the said award before this Court. The appeals of other landowners were decided on 20.11.2015 and were dismissed. At that stage, the present appellants had not ﬁled the appeals.

5. The landowners, whose appeals were dismissed, therea:er approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 22.11.2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.19693-19708 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4914-4929 of 2016) tled Samunder and others v. The State of Haryana and others, further enhanced the market value to ₹60,92,400/- per acre along with all statutory beneﬁts.

6. It is only a:er the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present appellants approached this Court seeking enhancement of compensa on on the ground of parity. Their appeals, however, were ﬁled with substan al delay. RFA No.1621 of 2019 is accompanied by an applica on seeking condona on of delay of 1919 days in ﬁling and 147 days in re-ﬁling. RFA No.1668 of 2019 is accompanied by applica ons seeking condona on of delay of 230 days in ﬁling and 300 days in re-ﬁling.

7. The applica ons to condone the delay in reﬁling were allowed by this court on 01.08.2019.

8. The State has opposed the applica ons for condona on of delay in ﬁling the appeals, contending that the appellants, having chosen not to pursue their remedy earlier and not having approached the Hon'ble Supreme

2 of 5

RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:008045 RFA-1668-2019 (O&M)

Court, cannot be permiAed to claim the beneﬁt of enhancement granted to other landowners a:er a lapse of several years.

9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the par es.

10. It is not disputed that the land of the present appellants forms part of the same acquisi on, governed by the same no ﬁca ons under Sec ons 4 and 6 of the Act, the same award of the Land Acquisi on Collector, and the same reference proceedings. It is also fairly conceded by the State that similarly situated landowners from the same acquisi on have already been granted enhanced compensa on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

11. The principles governing condona on of delay in land acquisi on maAers are no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, beginning with Collector, Land Acquisi on, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Ka ji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, has consistently held that a liberal and jus ce- oriented approach is required while dealing with delay applica ons, par cularly in maAers involving depriva on of land under compulsory acquisi on. The Court has emphasised that technical considera ons must not override substan al jus ce and that a landowner does not ordinarily stand to gain by approaching the Court belatedly.

12. In Dhiraj Singh (dead) through Lrs and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 127, and Market Commi-ee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari and Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 311, even delays running into several thousand days were condoned to maintain parity among landowners whose lands were acquired under the same no ﬁca on. In Huchanagouda(s) v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisi on Oﬃcer, (2020) 19 SCC 234, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while condoning long delay, balanced equi es by denying interest for the delayed period. The cons tu onal underpinning of the right to just compensa on under Ar cle 300-A of the Cons tu on has been reiterated in M/s Delhi AirTech Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408, holding that depriva on of property must always be accompanied by fairness and adequacy of compensa on.





                                  3 of 5

 RFA-1621-2019 (O&M)                                  2026:PHHC:008045
RFA-1668-2019 (O&M)

13. Most recently, in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (2025 INSC 550), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaﬃrmed that delay by itself cannot be a ground to deny a landowner compensa on that is otherwise lawfully payable, par cularly when denial would result in discriminatory treatment among similarly situated persons.

14. Applying these seAled principles, this Court is of the considered view that the delay in ﬁling the present appeals cannot be characterised as deliberate or lacking in bona ﬁdes. Refusal to condone the delay would lead to an anomalous and inequitable situa on, where landowners whose lands were acquired under the same no ﬁca on would receive diﬀerent compensa on, thereby oﬀending the principles of equality and parity, which lie at the heart of land acquisi on jurisprudence. The balance of equi es can be appropriately maintained by denying interest for the period of delay, which course has been consistently approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has also been accepted by the appellants.

15. Accordingly, the delay of 1919 days in ﬁling RFA No.1621 of 2019; and 230 days in ﬁling RFA No.1668 of 2019 is condoned, subject to the condi on that the appellants shall not be en tled to interest on the enhanced compensa on for the said period of delay.

16. On merits, once the delay is condoned, the issue stands concluded in view of the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is undisputed that the acquisi on in ques on, the nature of land, the poten ality, and the surrounding circumstances are iden cal to those considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samunder and others vs. The State of Haryana and others (supra). Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensa on for land arising out of the same acquisi on, denial of the same beneﬁt to the present appellants would be wholly unjus ﬁed.

17. In the circumstances, both the appeals are allowed. The appellants shall be en tled to enhanced compensa on in terms of the judgment dated 22.11.2017 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil

4 of 5

RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:008045 RFA-1668-2019 (O&M)

Appeal Nos.19693-19708 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4914-4929 of 2016) tled Samunder and others v. The State of Haryana and others,, along with all statutory beneﬁts admissible under the Land Acquisi on Act, 1894. However, they shall not be en tled to interest on the enhanced compensa on for the delayed period of 1919 days in RFA No.1621 of 2019, and 230 days in RFA No.1668 of 2019.

18. The appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the connected case ﬁle.

January 21, 2026                                             (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Sarita                                                           JUDGE

            Whether speaking/reasoned?           Yes/No
            Whether reportable?                  Yes/No


            Uploaded on: January 21, 2026





                                  5 of 5