G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. C.M. No. 10641-CI of 2016 has been filed for condonation of delay of 9038 days (more than 24 years) in filing of the appeal against judgment dated 07.11.1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Vide the said order, the appellant had been granted compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.90 per square yard while deciding the reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). The Land Acquisition Collector had assessed market value at Rs.3,50,000/-. The appellant-applicant admittedly did not challenge the said order which pertains to the notification dated 20.04.1987 under Section 4 of the Act which had been issued for the acquisition of land measuring 438.36 acres for the public purpose and development and utilization of Section 48 at Faridabad in the Revenue Estate of village Badkhal.

2. It has been pleaded in the application that in RFA No. 505 of 2017, Krishan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, delay of 6454 days in filing the appeal was condoned on 24.02.2014 and the appellant therein could claim compensation as per the decision dated 16.03.2010 in RFA No. 1015 of 1992, Chet Ram and others vs. State of Haryana. Accordingly, the application has been filed that the delay should be condoned and the compensation should be enhanced to Rs. 200/- per square yard.

3. State has filed its reply to the application that the same is not maintainable and the appellant has not come with clean hands. The delay has not been properly explained and the appeal has been filed only after coming to know about the enhancement in connected case and is abuse of the process of law.

4. It is not disputed that in RFA No. 1015 of 1992 whereby the notification dated 22.08.1988 was involved, the 16 appeals were disposed of keeping in view the fact that Division Bench in LPA No. 920 of 1994 decided on 27.07.2005 had assessed the market value of land of village Mewla Maharajpur @ Rs.200 per square yard pertaining to the same notification. The matter had been taken to the Apex Court and the SLP was also dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals had been allowed and the market value was fixed at @ Rs.200 per square yard keeping in view the fact that the time gap between the two notifications was almost 1 year and 4 months and, therefore, the market value at lower rate could not be fixed since the lands were adjacent to each other and acquired for the same purpose for carving of Sector 46 and Part-II of Sector 47, Faridabad. The appeals were of 1992, 1993 and 1994 and, thus, filed within limitation at that point of time whereas, it is to be noticed that the present appeal has been filed after almost a period of 24 years.

5. Counsel for the State has, thus, validly opposed the application and appeal on the ground that the statutory benefits cannot be granted as the State would unnecessarily be burdened with interest and solatium in the litigation which has already been finalized and opposed the appeal.

6. Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant-applicant is entitled for the benefits of the compensation at par with other land owners keeping in view the judgments of the Apex Court in Imrat Lal and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 437 and Dhiraj Singh (D) through L.Rs. and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014 (14) SCC 127 wherein, it has been held that delay can be condoned and the equities can be balanced by denying the appellants interest for the period for which appellants did not approach this Court. The relevant observations in Imrat Lal's case (supra) reads thus:-

“17. We appreciate the statement made by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General and hold that the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1216 per sq. yard with other statutory benefits. However, it is made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay i.e. 1110 days.”

7. The