Sanjay Vs the Land Acquisition Collector and Others

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.

¶19

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

¶20

SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶21

RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) RFA-1668-2019 (O&M)

¶22

2026:PHHC:008045

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶31

Page 2 of 5

¶32

RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) RFA-1668-2019 (O&M)

¶33

2026:PHHC:008045

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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�ceoriented 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.

¶38

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.

¶39

SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) RFA-1668-2019 (O&M)

¶42

2026:PHHC:008045

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶49

Page 4 of 5

¶50

RFA-1621-2019 (O&M) RFA-1668-2019 (O&M)

¶51

2026:PHHC:008045

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶55

January 21, 2026 Sarita

¶56

Uploaded on: January 21, 2026

¶57

SARITA RANI 2026.01.21 18:46 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶58

Page 5 of 5

Sanjay v. the Land Acquisition Collector and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. the Land Acquisition Collector 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

Lalu Ram Alias Lallu Ram Vs Anisha Modi

Om Parkash Malik Vs Kuldeep and Others

Baldev Singh Vs the Bathinda Amarpura Coop. Agri. Services Society Ltd.

Jagdish Vs Dharam Paul and Ors.

Jaswinder Kaur and Anr. Vs Jhalman Singh and Anr.

Paras Ram (Deceased) Thro Lr and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others