Mehar Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RFA-1104-2023 (O&M) Mehar Singh . . . . Appellant Vs.
State of Haryana and others . . . . Respondents
Reserved on:12.02.2026
Pronounced on: 13.02.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully ****
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been preferred seeking re-determination of the market value of the acquired land of the appellant, assailing the award dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court. The appeal is accompanied by an application (CM3234-CI-2023) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 3259 days in filing the appeal.
2.
The applicant-appellant is a landowner, whose land situated in village Khewra, Tehsil and District Sonipat, was acquired by the State of Haryana for the public purpose of development of Rajiv Gandhi Educa6on City. Dissa6sfied with the compensa6on awarded by the Land Acquisi6on Collector, the appellant sought a reference under Sec6on 18 of the Land Acquisi6on ACAt, 1894. The learned Reference Court, vide award dated 31.03.2012, determined the market value of the land of village Khewra at ₹32 lakhs per acre along with other statutory benefits.
3.
Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed, albeit with a delay of 3259 days.
4.
In the applica6on seeking condona6on of delay, it has been averred that immediately a:er the award dated 31.03.2012, landowners of villages Asawarpur and Khewra convened a mee6ng to file appeals collec6vely. A commi;ee was cons6tuted for the said purpose. The appellant, stated to be aged and illiterate, handed over the copy of the award and executed Vakalatnama to the commi;ee members under the bona fide belief that his appeal had been filed along with other similarly situated landowners. It is further pleaded that he remained unwell for a considerable period and that his son, serving in the Army, could not regularly pursue the ma;er. Therea:er, the COVID-19 pandemic intervened, disrup6ng normal func6oning. Eventually, the appellant came to know that the appeals filed by other landowners had already been decided by this Court. It is submi;ed that the delay is neither inten6onal nor deliberate and that denial of enhanced compensa6on would result in grave injus6ce.
5.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that appeals arising out of the same acquisi6on were decided by this Court on 03.11.2015. Subsequent proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including SLPs, review applica6ons, and remand, culminated in a common judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench in RFA No.41012008 <tled HSIDC (now HSIIDC) v. Rajesh Kumar-II and others, whereby compensa6on was enhanced. It is submi;ed that the present appellant stands on iden6cal foo6ng and that parity demands extension of the same benefit. 6.
Learned State counsel, while opposing condona6on of delay, has fairly conceded that the land of the appellant forms part of the same acquisi6on and is governed by the judgment dated 05.07.2019. 7.
Having considered the submissions and examined the record, this Court finds that the land of the appellant indisputably forms part of the same acquisi6on proceedings, governed by the same no6fica6ons issued under Sec6ons 4 and 6 of the Act, the same award of the Land Acquisi6on Collector, and the same reference adjudica6on. Similarly situated landowners have
already been granted enhanced compensa6on in terms of the judgment dated 05.07.2019, which has a;ained finality.
8.
The ques6on that arises is whether the inordinate delay of 3259 days deserves to be condoned or not.
9.
The principles governing condona6on of delay in land acquisi6on ma;ers have been consistently delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Collector, Land Acquisi"on, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Ka"ji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, it was held that a pragma6c, liberal and jus6ce-oriented approach must inform the exercise of discre6on under Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act. The Court observed that refusal to condone delay may result in meritorious ma;ers being thrown out at the threshold, and that a li6gant ordinarily does not stand to gain by filing an appeal belatedly. 10.
In Market Commi,ee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari and others, (1996) 1 SCC 311, and Dhiraj Singh (dead) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2014) 14 SCC 127, long delays in filing appeals arising from the same acquisi6on were condoned to ensure uniformity and parity among landowners. Similarly, in Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisi"on Officer and another, (2020) 19 SCC 236, while condoning substan6al delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court balanced equi6es by denying interest for the delayed period.
11.
The constitutional dimension of the right to just compensation under Article 300-A has been underscored in Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408, read with Coffee Board, Karnataka, Banglore v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, (1988) 3 SCC 263, holding that deprivation of property must be accompanied by fairness and adequate compensation. The most recent reiteration of these principles is found in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (2025 INSC 550), where it was held that delay alone cannot be a ground to deny compensation lawfully payable, particularly when denial would lead to discriminatory treatment among similarly situated landowners.
12.
The underlying ra6onale in such decisions is that compulsory acquisi6on deprives a ci6zen of property by opera6on of law, and once a Court has judicially determined the fair market value for lands covered by the same no6fica6on, denial of similar compensa6on to a landowner solely on the ground of delay would lead to discriminatory treatment. Such disparity would offend not only principles of equality but also the guarantee under Ar6cle 300-A of the Cons6tu6on that depriva6on of property must be accompanied by just and fair compensa6on.
13.
In the present case, the explana6on furnished by the appellant, though not exemplary in diligence, cannot be said to be wholly lacking in bona fides. The appellant is stated to be aged and illiterate, and there is material to suggest that collec6ve ac6on was ini6ated by landowners. It is also significant that the appellant would derive no strategic advantage by approaching this Court belatedly. On the contrary, non-condona6on would result in permanent denial of compensa6on already judicially recognized as just and fair for iden6cally situated landowners.
14.
In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that substan6al jus6ce would be advanced by condoning the delay, subject to appropriate condi6ons so as to balance equi6es. Consistent with the approach adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar ma;ers, the ends of jus6ce would be met by denying interest on the enhanced compensa6on for the period of delay.
15.
Accordingly, the delay of 3259 days in filing the appeal is condoned on the condi6on that the appellant shall not be en6tled to interest on the enhanced compensa6on for the said period.
16.
On merits, it is not disputed that the appellant's land is covered by the same acquisi6on and that the determina6on rendered in RFA No.41012008 <tled HSIDC (now HSIIDC) v. Rajesh Kumar-II and others decided on 05.07.2019 governs the field. The State has fairly conceded the said posi6on. Once this Court has enhanced compensa6on for lands forming part of the same
acquisi6on, denial of similar relief to the present appellant would be indefensible.
17.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The applicant-appellant shall be en6tled to enhanced compensa6on in terms of the judgment dated 05.07.2019 in RFA No.4101-2008 along with all other statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisi6on Act, 1894, except interest for the delayed period of 3259 days.
18.
CM-3234-CI-2023 under Sec6on 5 of the Limita6on Act as well as RFA No.1104-2023 stand allowed in the above terms. Pending applica6on(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) 13.02.2026 JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 16.02.2026