Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs Land Acquisition Collector, Panipat

This appeal arises out of the award dated 02.11.1992 passed by the Reference Court under Secon 18 of the Land Acquision Act, 1894, rela*ng to acquired land situated in Village Taraf Afgan, District Panipat.

¶18

The land in queson, along with land belonging to several other landowners of villages Taraf Afgan, Ugra Kheri and Malik Ugrakheri (now falling within District Panipat), was acquired by the State of Haryana vide noficaon dated 15.12.1982 issued under Secon 4 of the Act, followed by declaraon dated 23.02.1985 under Secon 6, for the public purpose of development and ulisaon of residenal, commercial and industrial area, namely Sector-25, PartII, Urban Estate, Panipat. The Land Acquision Collector vide Award No.9 dated 27.09.1985, assessed the market value of the acquired land at ₹59,200/- per acre.

¶19

The land of the appellants also formed part of the said acquision. Their father, Balwant Rai, during his lifeme sought a reference under Sec*on

¶20

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RFA-2868-2012 (O&M)

¶22

18 of the Act. The said reference, along with references of other landowners arising from the same acquisi*on, was decided by the Reference Court on 02.11.1992, determining the market value at ₹44/- per square yard.

¶23

Several landowners, whose lands were acquired under the same noficaons and covered by the same award, approached this Court seeking further enhancement. Their appeals were decided by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.302 of 1996 0tled Joga Ram and others v. State of Haryana and another , (1997) 116 PLR 303 , whereby the market value was enhanced to ₹80/- per square yard along with statutory benefits. However, the father of the present appellants, and therea@er the appellants themselves, did not file any appeal immediately.

¶24

The present appeal has been instuted in July 2012 seeking parity with the judgment of Joga Ram (supra). Along with the appeal, an applicaon bearing CM-5790-CI-2012 under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act has been filed seeking condonaon of delay of 7048 days. The appellants have explained that their father was pursuing the maDer but unfortunately expired in May 2011 without disclosing whether an appeal had been filed. Appellant No.1 therea@er learnt from the District Courts, Panipat, that in LAC No.42 of 2010 decided on 24.12.2011, the Reference Court had condoned a delay of 19 years and 8 months and granted enhanced compensaon in respect of land covered by the same acquision. Upon verificaon, it transpired that no appeal had been filed by their father. It is pleaded that the appellants had no mo*ve to delay the proceedings and would derive no benefit from filing the appeal belatedly.

¶25

Learned State counsel does not dispute that the land of the appellants is covered by the same acquision proceedings and the judgment of Joga Ram (supra) , but has opposed the applicaon for condona*on of delay on the ground that no sufficient cause has been shown for such an inordinate delay.

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RFA-2868-2012 (O&M)

¶29

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶30

It is an admiDed posion that the land of the appellants was acquired under the same noficaons issued under Secons 4 and 6 of the Act, governed by the same award of the Land Acquision Collector and decided by the same Reference Court. It is also not in dispute that similarly situated landowners from the very same acquision have already been granted enhanced compensa*on, which has aDained finality.

¶31

The principles governing condonaon of delay in land acquision maDers are well seDled. In Collector, Land Acquisi!on, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Ka!ji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a liberal, jusce-oriented approach must be adopted in considering applicaons for condonaon of delay, parcularly where refusal would result in denial of substanve jusce. It was emphasised that ordinarily a li*gant does not benefit by approaching the Court belatedly.

¶32

In Market Commi,ee, Hodal v. Krishan Murari, (1996) 1 SCC 311, and Dhiraj Singh (dead) through LRs v. State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 127, the Hon’ble Supreme Court condoned delays extending to several years in land acquision cases to ensure parity among landowners whose lands were acquired under the same noficaon. The underlying principle is that compensaon for compulsory acquisi*on must be uniform and nondiscriminatory.

¶33

In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisi!on Officer, (2020) 19 SCC 234 , while condoning a long delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court balanced equies by denying interest for the period of delay. This approach has been consistently followed to prevent unjust enrichment while ensuring substanve jus*ce.

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

RFA-2868-2012 (O&M)

¶37

The constuonal dimension of the issue has also been highlighted in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408 , wherein it was held that the right to property under Arcle 300-A mandates that deprivaon must be accompanied by fairness and just compensaon. Most recently, in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (2025 INSC 550), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that mere delay cannot be a ground to deny lawful compensaon to a landowner, especially when such denial would result in hosle discriminaon amongst similarly situated persons.

¶38

Applying the aforesaid seDled principles, this Court is of the considered view that the delay in filing the present appeal cannot be characterised as wilful or lacking the bona fides. Refusal to condone the delay would result in an anomalous situaon where landowners, whose lands were acquired under idencal noficaons and for the same public purpose, would receive disparate compensaon, offending the principles of equality and parity which permeate land acquision jurisprudence.

¶39

The equies of the case can be adequately balanced by denying interest on the enhanced compensaon for the period of delay, a course consistently approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and fairly accepted by the appellants.

¶40

Accordingly, the delay of 7048 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to the condion that the appellants shall not be entled to interest on the enhanced compensa*on for the said delayed period.

¶41

On merits, once the delay is condoned, the controversy no longer survives. The acquision, nature and potenality of the land and surrounding circumstances being idencal to those considered in Joga Ram and others v. State of Haryana (supra), the appellants are entled to the same compensaon. Denial of such benefit would be wholly unjusfied and contrary to seDled law.

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

RFA-2868-2012 (O&M)

¶45

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellants shall be entled to enhanced compensaon in terms of LPA No.302 of 1996 tled Joga Ram and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported as (1997) 116 PLR 303, along with all statutory benefits admissible under the Land Acquision Act, 1894. However, they shall not be entled to interest on the enhanced compensaon for the delayed period of 7048 days.

¶46

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending applica*on(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶47

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

¶48

		JUDGE
23.01.2026
Nee�ka Tuteja
	Whether speaking/reasoned?	Yes/No
	Whether reportable?	Yes/No

¶49

Uploaded on.: 23.01.2026

¶50

Page 5 of 5

¶51

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.23 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rajesh Kumar and Others v. Land Acquisition Collector, Panipat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar and Others v. Land Acquisition Collector, Panipat

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

Birkha Ram Vs Leiah Biradari

Shyam Lal Vs Hem Raj and Ors.

(O&M) Shyam Lal Vs Hem Raj and Others

Kaushalya Bai Vs Jeet Singh and Ors.

Ramesh Sharma Vs Narender Parsad Jain

Rizak Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.