IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

225-u CHANDIGARH RFA-233-2021 (O&M) Decided on:-21.01.2026 Prem Nath (deceased) thr. his LRs ....Appellant(s)..

vs.

State of Punjab and others .Respondents..

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr.J.K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

CM-168-CI-2026

1. This is an application for preponing the date of hearing in the main appeal, which is fixed for 23.02.2026.

2. Notice of the application.

3. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and raises no objection to the aforesaid course.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the contents of the application, prayer made herein is allowed and the date of hearing of the main appeal is preponed from 23.02.2026 to today itself i.e.

21.01.2026 for hearing.

CM-809-CI-2021

1. Prayer in this application is for impleading the legal representatives of appellant-Prem Nath, who died on 25.06.2014.

2. Notice of the application.

3. Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and raises no objection to the aforesaid course.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application, prayer made herein is allowed and persons mentioned in para 4 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as the legal representatives of appellant-Prem Nath (now deceased).

CM-808-CI-2021

1. This is an application for condoning the delay of 2990 days in filing the appeal.

2. Separate replies to the application filed on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2-State and respondent No.3 in the Registry, are taken on record.

3. Learned counsel representing the respondent(s) vehemently opposes the prayer made in the application and prays for dismissal of the application.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application as well as replies filed on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2-State and respondent No.3.

5. Concededly, the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation vide judgment dated 22.02.2019 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals with lead case bearing RFA-5978-2013 (O&M), titled as “Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Mandi Board) vs. Ludhar Mal and others”.

6. Based thereupon, besides applying the principle of parity, the applicants-landowners being similarly situated, are entitled for grant of similar amount of compensation, however, without any payment of interest for the period they failed to approach this Court after the decision in the reference Court. In this regard reliance can be placed upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, 2020 (19) SCC 599 and the latest exposition of law laid down in “Mohar Singh (Dead) thr. LRs and ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector and ors.” reported as 2023 INSC 1019, whereby, delay of 12 years and 353 days was condoned to accord parity between similarly placed landowners albeit no interest was awarded for delayed period. The relevant portion thereof is extracted hereunder:-

“12. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the appellants are entitled to seek parity with their co- villagers in the grant of compensation for their acquired land. This Court has consistently held in a catena of decisions that the inordinate delay in filing appeal in compensatory matters, per se, may not be fatal as the rights and equities between the parties can be well balanced by denying the statutory benefits, such as interest for the delayed period. We are thus of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the first appeal(s) could be condoned subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to enure