Charan Singh (Since Deceased) through Hus Lrs Rajinder Kaur and Others Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others

T h is is an application under Sect i on 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 3576 days in filing the accompanying Regular First Appeal against th e award passed by the Refere n ce Court in a m a tter arising out of compulso r y acquisition of land for pu b lic purposes.

¶17

U p on notice, Sh. Jaivir S. Chandail, Additional Standing Counsel f or UT Chandigarh , accepts the same on behalf o f the respondent-UT Chandiga r h. He does not wi s h to file reply to the applicatio n but strongly opposes the same. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 1 of 7

¶18

RFA No. 358 of 2019

¶19

It is submitted by the applicants ( Legal heirs of Charan Singh) t h at land belonging to Charan Singh son of Chana n Singh, situated in village Laho r a, UT Chandigarh, was acquired vide LAO Award N o. 576 dated 28.02.2005. Charan Singh along wi t h similarly situated landowner s had filed reference applicati o ns under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition A c t, 1894 for enhancement of the compensation. The Reference Court enhanc e d the compensation vide aw a rd dated 06.01.2 0 09. However, Charan Singh e xpired on 17.02.2009. After h is death, his legal heirs could not file the appeal, as they were not aware about the decision of the Reference Court. Besides, dispute arose amongst the legal heirs of Charan Sing h , inasmuch as Nasib Kaur, wife of late Charan Singh filed civil s u it in October 201 2 , claiming the entire property o n the basis of a will. The suit w as dismissed on 19.03.2016 and the appeal filed by Nasib Kaur was dismissed on 02.05.2018. Be s ides, another suit filed by the appellants herein being the sons of Charan Singh w as decreed on 25.02.2014. After disposal of the afores a id litigation, the c ompensation lying deposited i n the name of Charan Singh w as got released fr o m the Reference Court on 17.10.2018 and it is only thereaf t er that after getting the certified copy of the a w ard of the Reference Court, the appeal has bee n filed.

¶20

It i s also stated by Ld. Counsel t hat appeals of similarly situated landowners ha v e already been accepted by t his Court and compensation h as been further e n hanced. Learned counsel submits that in such like circumstanc e s, Hon’ble the Su p reme Court, in a catena of ju d gments has condoned the del a y. Reliance has b e en placed upon Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (dead) through LRs vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., 2020(19) SCC 599 ; and Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2025 INSC 550 . With all these submissions, praye r is made for cond o ning the delay of 3576 days in f iling the appeal.

¶21

O n the other hand, learned Ad d itional Standing counsel for U T Chandigarh, w h ile opposing the application su b mits that there is no justificati o n for condoning the huge delay of approximately 10 years in filing this appeal.

¶22

Su b missions of both the sides hav e been considered.

¶23

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

Page No. 2 of 7

¶25

RFA No. 358 of 2019

¶26

It h as been conceded by learned A dditional Standing counsel for U T Chandigarh th a t other similarly situated lan d owners pertaining to the sa m e acquisition pr o ceedings have already been held entitled for enhanced compensation v ide judgment dated 17.08.201 5 in a bunch of appeals with lead case bearing R FA No. 2025 of 2009 titled Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Mujral and another vs. UT Chandigarh .

¶27

Considering the aforesaid factual position and the reas o ns mentioned in t h e application for condoning th e delay, which is supported by the affidavit of one of the appellants Bhupinder K a ur, this Court is of the considered opinion that delay of 3576 days deserve to be c ondoned.

¶28

Th e law on this issue has bee n crystallized by a long line of judgments of H on’ble Supreme Court, all of w hich emphasize that in matt e rs relating to co m pulsory acquisition of land, th e Courts must adopt a liberal and justice-orientated approach.

¶29

Th e starting point of this jurispru d ence is the celebrated judgm e nt in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anand Nag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107 , wher e in Hon’ble Supreme Court und e rscored that (i) “every day’s delay must be explai n ed” is not to be construed in a pedantic or mechanical mann e r; (ii) that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an app e al belatedly; (iii) t hat refusal to condone delay may lead to meritorious matt e rs being thrown o ut at the very threshold; and (iv) that when substantial just i ce and technical c o nsiderations are in conflict, th e cause of substantial justice m u st prevail. The C o urt also held that no presum p tion of deliberate delay or m a la fides should b e drawn lightly and that the judicial process must be geared to remove injustice rather than to legalise it on technical grounds.

¶30

Th e se principles have consistentl y guided subsequent decisions. In Pathapati Subba Reddy (dead) by LRs & Ors. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 , Hon’ble Suprem e Court reiterated that a liberal approach is re q uired in land acquisition matte r s. In Dhiraj Singh (D) through LRs etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors. , (2014) 14 SCC 127, the Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page No. 3 of 7

¶31

RFA No. 358 of 2019

¶32

condoned a lo n g delay in filing appeals on t h e ground that similarly situated landowners w h o had filed appeals in time had already received hig h er compensation, and it would be inequitable to d eny the same to land losers who were late. In Market Committee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari & Ors. , (1996) 1 SCC 311, even a hu g e delay of 3240 days was c o ndoned, Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt holding that pa r ity in compensation cannot be d enied solely due to delay.

¶33

In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner & LAO , (2020) 19 SCC 234, delay exc e eding 2000 days was condoned after taking into account the poverty and illiteracy of the landowner, while balancing equities by denying interest for the delayed period. A similar b alancing exercise was made in Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project District Parbhani, Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , (2020) 3 SCC 255, where Hon’ble Supreme Co u rt held that whil e delay may be condoned, the acquiring authority cannot be burdened with interest for the entire period of delay. Reference may also be made to Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (dead) through LRs & Anr. v. SLAO , (2020) 19 SCC 599, re f lecting the consistent judicial s tand that delay alone cannot be permitted to d e feat a landowner’s right to just compensation.

¶34

Th e constitutional dimension of t h is principle has been highlighted 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, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while the St a te possesses the p ower of eminent domain, deprivation of private property m u st be accompanied by just and fair compensatio n as mandated by Article 300-A of the Constitutio n of India and must adhere to p r ocedure established by law.

¶35

Th e se very principles have bee n reaffirmed recently in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2025 INSC 550), where Hon’ble Supre m e Court held that in land acquisition matters, delay, however long, cannot be allowed to ope r ate as a bar to the land loser receiving the compensation lawf u lly due. The Court reiterated that appeals must b e entertained on merits, subject to

¶36

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

Page No. 4 of 7

¶38

RFA No. 358 of 2019

¶39

denial of inter e st for the period attributable t o delay, so as to ensure equita b le balance betwe e n both sides.

¶40

In the present case, the appellant’s claim arises from the sa m e acquisition, i n which other claimants h ave been granted enhanced compensation. If the appellant’s appeal is reje c ted on the ground of limitation , it would create a n anomalous situation, wher e persons similarly situated and whose lands w ere acquired under the sa m e notification receive differ e nt amounts of co m pensation. Such a result would be antithetical to the princip l es of fairness, pa r ity and equity that underpin t h e law of compulsory acquisiti o n. No material h a s been placed on record that would indicate that the delay is deliberate, ma l a fide or intended to gain un d ue advantage. On the contrary, non-condonati o n would result in perpetuation of manifest injustice.

¶41

Ac c ordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supre m e Court and in t h e interest of substantial justic e , the delay of 3576 days in filing the appeal is h e reby condoned, subject to the c ondition that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation, if awarded, for the aforesaid delay e d period. The application stan d s allowed accordingly.

¶42

RFA No. 358 of 2019

¶43

In t he present case, the acquisitio n relates to land situated in village Lahora, Hadb a st No. 348, Union Territor y , Chandigarh. The Chandig a rh Administration issued a notification dated 2 0 .11.2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisiti o n Act, 1894, followed by a de c laration dated 18.11.2004 un d er Section 6 of th e Act, acquiring the land for t h e public purpose of developin g a complex for th e Chandigarh Science Park and Institutional Area, as well as f or regulated and p lanned development under th e Capital of Punjab (Developm e nt and Regulatio n ) Act, 1952. The Land Acquisi t ion Collector, vide Award dated 28.02.2005, as s essed the market value of the a cquired land at ₹15,54,098/- p er acre. On refer e nce under Section 18 of the A ct, the learned Reference Co u rt enhanced the c ompensation and determined the market value at ₹23,13,13 9 /-

¶44

JITEN SHARMA per acre. 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

Page No. 5 of 7

¶46

RFA No. 358 of 2019

¶47

It is a matter of record that several landowners, aggrieved by the valuation dete r mined by the Reference Court , preferred separate Regular First Appeals befor e this Court. A Co-ordinate Be n ch of this Court, in a bunch of appeals led by RFA No. 2025 of 2009, Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Mujral & Anr. vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh , decided on 17.08.2015, undertook a comprehensive assessment of the potentialit y , location, development factors, and comparab l e sale instances of the acqu i red land. The Bench thereaf t er further enhan c ed the compensation by holding that the landowners w e re entitled to co m pensation @₹ 27,90,000/- p e r acre, along with all statut o ry benefits admis s ible under the Act.

¶48

Le a rned Additional Standing Co u nsel for the UT Chandigarh h as fairly concede d before this Court that no f urther appeal was filed by the Administration against the said judgment dat e d 17.08.2015 and, consequen t ly, the said judgm e nt has attained finality. It is al s o candidly admitted that the c a se of the present appellants stands fully covere d by the adjudication rendered in Kanwaljit Singh Mujral (supra) , as the land involved in the present appeal for m s part of the sa m e acquisition, governed by the same notifications and the sa m e award.

¶49

In such circumstances, principles of parity, consistency, and eq u al treatment man d ate that similarly situated lan d owners cannot be awarded les s er compensation m erely because their appeals w e re filed belatedly, especially af t er this Court ha s already enhanced compen s ation in respect of the sa m e acquisition.

¶50

Having regard to the aforesaid factual and legal position, and in particular the b inding effect of the judgment in Kanwaljit Singh Mujral (supra) , the present a p peal deserves to be allowe d . Though the appellants wo u ld ordinarily be entitled to compensation @ ₹ 27,90,000/- per acre, this Court, while condoni n g a substantial delay of 35 7 6 days, has already imposed a condition that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period.

¶51

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

Page No. 6 of 7

¶53

RFA No. 358 of 2019

¶54

Ta k ing into account this balanci n g of equities, and following the judicial discipli n e of maintaining parity while simultaneously preventing undue financial burden on the acquiring body arisi n g from delayed filing, this Co u rt holds that the appellants shall be entitled to c ompensation @₹25,90,000/- p er acre, along wit h all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the extent of t h eir respective shares.

¶55

Fo r the reasons recorded above, the present Regular First App e al stands allowed in the above terms. It is clarifie d that no interest shall be paya b le to the appellants for the delayed period of 35 7 6 days, as already directed while allowing the a p plication for condonation of delay. The appeal is accordin g ly disposed of.

¶56

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

¶57

17.11.2025 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶58

Jiten

¶59

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.17 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

Page No. 7 of 7

Charan Singh (Since Deceased) through Hus Lrs Rajinder Kaur and Others v. Ut Chandigarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Singh (Since Deceased) through Hus Lrs Rajinder Kaur and Others v. Ut Chandigarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Ajit Singh Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Khalil and Others Vs Khurshid Ahmed and Others

Ramesh Khatri Vs Darshan

Market Committee, Ahmedgarh Vs M/S Parkash Chand

Market Committee,Ahmedgarh Vs M/S Parkash Chand Kidar Nath

Dholposh Shastri Vs Civil Panchayat/ Gram Panchayat Bas Lambi and Ors.