Smt. Mewa And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Smt. Mewa and others ...Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

Reserved on: 22.04.2026

Pronounced on: 24.04.2026 Pronounced fully/opera5ve part: Fully

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This appeal under Sec5on 54 of the Land Acquisi5on Act has been filed seeking enhancement of compensa5on awarded for the acquired land of the appellants. The appeal is accompanied by applica5on bearing CM-1912-CI-2024 under Sec5on 5 of the Limita5on Act to condone the delay of 3706 days in filing the appeal.- 2.

The perusal of the paper-book would reveal that 16.37 acres of land situated in village Pawala Khusrupur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, which included the land of the appellants, was acquired for development and u5liza5on of the same for sector roads of 99 to 115 at Gurugram. No5fica5on under Sec5on 4 of the Land Acquisi5on Act for this purpose was issued on 13.01.2010 followed by no5fica5on dated 25.01.2010 under Sec5on 6 of the Act. Collector, vide his award No.75 dated 31.03.2010 determined the market value of the acquired land at ₹60,00,000/- per acre. 3.

Various landowners sought references including the appellants.

[2] The Reference Court enhanced the compensa5on to ₹1,71,06,462/- per acre apart from other statutory benefits. Not sa5sfied with the same, various appeals were preferred before this Court. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.10.2019 passed in RFA-7824-2013 5tled 'Vivek Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others' along with various other connected appeals, assessed the market value at ₹4,78,79,070/- per acre along with the statutory benefits.

4.

It is submiHed by the appellants that they had engaged a counsel to file appeal before this court, who assured to do the needful. Appellants remained under the belief that appeal for them had been filed but when other appeals were disposed of, they tried to contact their counsel, who did not pick their call. They then engaged other counsel and on checking the status, came to know that appeal was filed but certain objec5ons were raised but later, appeal was not filed by removing objec5ons. Then they have filed present appeal and and so, they have filed the present appeal with a delay of 3706 days. With these submissions, prayer is made for condoning the delay.

5.

In reply to the applica5on, the State of Haryana has strongly opposed the condoning of the delay, submiJng that there is no jus5fica5on.

6.

Arguments have been heard.

7.

It has not been disputed by learned State counsel that the case is fully covered by judgment dated 23.10.2019 in RFA-7824-2013 5tled 'Vivek Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others'. 8.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the ques5on is whether the delay of 3706 days in filing this appeal should be condoned for the reasons disclosed by them supported by affidavit.

9.

It is by now well established that in cases involving compulsory acquisi5on of land, courts are required to adopt a liberal and jus5ce-ori-

[3] ented approach while considering applica5ons for condona5on of delay. The underlying ra5onale is that a landowner, who has been deprived of his property by the State, cannot be denied just compensa5on merely on account of delay, par5cularly when other similarly situated landowners have already been granted enhanced compensa5on.

10.

The principle of parity assumes considerable significance in such maHers. Denial of the same compensa5on to landowners, whose lands are covered by the very same no5fica5on would result in an anomalous and inequitable situa5on, offending not only the concept of fairness but also the equality clause enshrined in Ar5cle 14 of the Cons5tu5on. Further, the right to property under Ar5cle 300-A, though no longer a fundamental right, con5nues to be a valuable cons5tu5onal right, which mandates that depriva5on thereof must be accompanied by just, fair and reasonable compensa5on. 11.

At the same 5me, the courts have evolved a balanced approach to safeguard the interests of the State by denying interest for the period of delay, thereby ensuring that while substan5ve jus5ce is done, the financial burden arising out of inordinate delay is not unjustly imposed upon the State. Reference may be made to Collector, Land Acquisi on, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Ka ji & Ors, (1987) 2 SCC 107; Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 1408; and Coffee Board, Karnataka Bangalore v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka and others, (1988) 3 SCC 263. 12.

In Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 127; and in Market Commi3ee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 311, long delays, running into several thousand days, were condoned by Supreme Court precisely to maintain parity between similarly situated landowners. Likewise, in Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner & LAO and another (2020) 19 SCC 234, while condoning long delays, Hon'ble Supreme Court balanced the equi5es by denying interest

[4] for the delayed period. The recent reitera5on 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 compensa5on that is otherwise lawfully due.

13.

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the delay in filing the appeals cannot be said to be deliberate or mala fide. More importantly, refusal to condone the delay would result in denial of compensa5on at par with other landowners, whose lands were acquired under the same no5fica5on and who have already been granted enhanced compensa5on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such a course would be legally untenable. 14.

Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned, subject to the condi5on that the appellants shall not be en5tled to interest on the enhanced compensa5on for the period of delay. Merits of the Appeals 15.

Turning to the merits of the case, it is not disputed that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 23.10.2019 passed in RFA-7824-2013 5tled 'Vivek Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others'. The acquisi5on, the no5fica5ons, the award, and the subsequent adjudica5ons are common. There is no dis5nguishing feature, which would jus5fy denial of the benefit of the said judgment to the present appellants.

16.

Once the market value of the land acquired under the same no5fica5on has been finally determined by this Court, the principle of finality coupled with parity leaves no room for any further adjudica5on on the issue. The appellants are, therefore, en5tled to compensa5on at the rate of ₹4,78,79,070/- per Acre, as has been awarded in the aforesaid judgment, along with all statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisi5on Act, 1894.

[5] 17.

In view of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed. The appellants shall be en5tled to an enhanced compensa5on in terms of the judgment dated 23.10.2019 passed by this Court in Vivek Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others (supra), along with all consequen5al statutory benefits. However, they shall not be en5tled to any interest for the period of delay, as no5ced hereinabove.

18.

The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. 24.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 24.04.2026