Raj Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

This appeal under Sec2on 54 of the Land Acquisi2on Act 1894 has been filed assailing the award dated 28.02.2013 of the Reference Court, by seeking enhancement in the market value of the acquired land.

¶14

The land in ques2on, situated in village Raipur, District Sonepat, was acquired by the State of Haryana vide no2fica2on dated 15.06.2006 issued under Sec2on 4 of the Act, followed by no2fica2on dated 14.06.2007 under Sec2on 6, for the public purpose of development of residen2al and commercial Sectors 9 and 18, Sonipat.

¶15

The Land Acquisi2on 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. Dissa2sfied, various landowners including the present appellant sought references under Sec2on 18 of the Act. The Reference Court enhanced the compensa2on to ₹52,25,000/- per acre besides statutory benefits vide his award dated 28.02.2013.

¶16

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 appellant had not filed the appeal.

¶17

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.11 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RFA-1831-2023 (O&M) [2]

¶19

The landowners, whose appeals were dismissed, thereaAer 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) 2tled 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.

¶20

It is only aAer the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present appellant approached this Court seeking enhancement of compensa2on on the ground of parity. The appeal, however, has been filed with substan2al delay and is accompanied by an applica2on [CM 5291-CI of 2023] seeking condona2on of delay of 3083 days in filing the appeal.

¶21

The State has opposed the applica2on for condona2on of delay in filing the appeal, contending that the appellant, having chosen not to pursue his remedy earlier and not having approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be permiEed to claim the benefit of enhancement granted to other landowners aAer a lapse of several years.

¶22

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the par2es.

¶23

It is not disputed that the land of the present appellant forms part of the same acquisi2on, governed by the same no2fica2ons under Sec2ons 4 and 6 of the Act, the same award of the Land Acquisi2on Collector, and the same reference proceedings. It is also fairly conceded by the State that similarly situated landowners from the same acquisi2on have already been granted enhanced compensa2on by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶24

The principles governing condona2on of delay in land acquisi2on maEers are no longer res integra . The Hon’ble Supreme Court, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.11 13:44 beginning with Collector, Land Acquisi�on, Anantnag and another v. Mst. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Ka�ji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 , has consistently held that a liberal and

¶25

RFA-1831-2023 (O&M) [3]

¶26

jus2ce-oriented approach is required while dealing with delay applica2ons, par2cularly in maEers involving depriva2on of land under compulsory acquisi2on. The Court has emphasised that technical considera2ons must not override substan2al jus2ce and that a landowner does not ordinarily stand to gain by approaching the Court belatedly.

¶27

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 no2fica2on. 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 equi2es by denying interest for the delayed period. The cons2tu2onal underpinning of the right to just compensa2on under Ar2cle 300-A of the Cons2tu2on 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 depriva2on of property must always be accompanied by fairness and adequacy of compensa2on.

¶28

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 compensa2on that is otherwise lawfully payable, par2cularly when denial would result in discriminatory treatment among similarly situated persons.

¶29

Applying these seEled principles, this Court is of the considered view that the delay in filing the present appeal cannot be characterized as deliberate or lacking in bona fides. Refusal to condone the delay would lead to an anomalous and inequitable situa2on, where landowners whose lands were acquired under the same no2fica2on would receive different compensa2on, thereby offending the principles of equality and parity, which lie at the heart of land acquisi2on jurisprudence. The balance of equi2es can

¶30

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.03.11 13:44 be appropriately maintained by denying interest for the period of delay, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which course has been consistently approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶31

RFA-1831-2023 (O&M) [4]

¶32

and has also been accepted by the appellants.

¶33

Accordingly, [CM 5291-CI of 2023] is allowed and the delay of 3083 days in filing is condoned, subject to the condi2on that the appellant shall not be en2tled to interest on the enhanced compensa2on for the said period of delay.

¶34

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 acquisi2on in ques2on, the nature of land, the poten2ality, and the surrounding circumstances are iden2cal 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 compensa2on for land arising out of the same acquisi2on, denial of the same benefit to the present appellant would be wholly unjus2fied.

¶35

In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be en2tled to enhanced compensa2on in terms of the judgment dated 22.11.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos.19693– 19708 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.4914–4929 of 2016) 2tled Samunder and others v. The State of Haryana and others, , along with all statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquisi2on Act, 1894. However, he shall not be en2tled to interest on the enhanced compensa2on for the delayed period of 3083 days.

¶36