IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajesh Kumar and Others . . . . Appellants Vs.

Land Acquisi0on Officer, Panchkula . . . . Respondent ****

Reserved on: 22.01.2026 Pronounced on: 23.01.2026 Pronounced fully/opera0ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This appeal arises out of the award dated 02.11.1992 passed by the Ref-

erence Court under Sec*on 18 of the Land Acquisi*on Act, 1894, rela*ng to ac-

quired land situated in Village Taraf Afgan, District Panipat.

2. The land in ques*on, 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 no*fica*on dated 15.12.1982 issued under Sec*on 4 of the Act, followed by declara*on dated 23.02.1985 under Sec*on 6, for the public purpose of development and u*lisa*on of residen*al, commercial and industrial area, namely Sector-25, Part- II, Urban Estate, Panipat. The Land Acquisi*on Collector vide Award No.9 dated 27.09.1985, assessed the market value of the acquired land at ₹59,200/- per acre.

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

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.

4. Several landowners, whose lands were acquired under the same no*fica*ons 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.

5. The present appeal has been ins*tuted in July 2012 seeking parity with the judgment of Joga Ram (supra). Along with the appeal, an applica*on bearing CM-5790-CI-2012 under Sec*on 5 of the Limita*on Act has been seeking condona*on 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 compensa*on in respect of land covered by the same acquisi*on. Upon verifica*on, 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.

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

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

8. It is an admiDed posi*on that the land of the appellants was acquired under the same no*fica*ons issued under Sec*ons 4 and 6 of the Act, governed by the same award of the Land Acquisi*on Collector and decided by the same Reference Court. It is also not in dispute that similarly situated landowners from the very same acquisi*on have already been granted enhanced compensa*on, which has aDained finality.

9. The principles governing condona*on of delay in land acquisi*on maDers are well seDled. In Collector, Land Acquisi!on, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Ka!ji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Ho