IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mehar Singh . . . . Appellant Vs.

State of Haryana and others . . . . Respondents Reserved on:12.02.2026 Pronounced on: 13.02.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been preferred seeking re-determination of the market value of the acquired land of the appellant, assailing the award dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court. The appeal is accompanied by an application (CM- 3234-CI-2023) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 3259 days in filing the appeal.

2. The applicant–appellant is a landowner, whose land situated in village Khewra, Tehsil and District Sonipat, was acquired by the State of Haryana for the public purpose of development of Rajiv Gandhi Educa6on City. Dissa6sfied with the compensa6on awarded by the Land Acquisi6on Collector, the appellant sought a reference under Sec6on 18 of the Land Acquisi6on ACAt, 1894. The learned Reference Court, vide award dated 31.03.2012, determined the market value of the land of village Khewra at ₹32 lakhs per acre along with other statutory benefits.

3. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed, albeit with a delay of 3259 days.

4. In the applica6on seeking condona6on of delay, it has been averred that immediately a:er the award dated 31.03.2012, landowners of villages Asawarpur and Khewra convened a mee6ng to file appeals collec6vely. A commi;ee was cons6tuted for the said purpose. The appellant, stated to be aged and illiterate, handed over the copy of the award and executed Vakalatnama to the commi;ee members under the bona fide belief that his appeal had been filed along with other similarly situated landowners. It is further pleaded that he remained unwell for a considerable period and that his son, serving in the Army, could not regularly pursue the ma;er. Therea:er, the COVID-19 pandemic intervened, disrup6ng normal func6oning. Eventually, the appellant came to know that the appeals filed by other landowners had already been decided by this Court. It is submi;ed that the delay is neither inten6onal nor deliberate and that denial of enhanced compensa6on would result in grave injus6ce.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed out that appeals arising out of the same acquisi6on were decided by this Court on 03.11.2015. Subsequent proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including SLPs, review applica6ons, and remand, culminated in a common judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench in RFA No.4101- 2008 tled HSIDC (now HSIIDC) v. Rajesh Kumar-II and others, whereby compensa6on was enhanced. It is submi;ed that the present appellant stands on iden6cal foo6ng and that parity demands extension of the same benefit.

6. Learned State counsel, while opposing condona6on of delay, has fairly conceded that the land of the appellant forms part of the same acquisi6on and is governed by the judgment dated 05.07.2019.

7. Having considered the submissions and examined the record, this Court finds that the land of the appellant indisputably forms part of the same acquisi6on proceedings, governed by the same no6fica6ons issued under Sec6ons 4 and 6 of the Act, the same award of the Land Acquisi6on Collector, and the same reference adjudica6on. Similarly situated landowners have already been granted enhanced compensa6on in terms of the judgment dated

05.07.2019, which has a;ained finality.

8. The ques6on that arises is whether the inordinate delay of 3259 days deserves to be condoned or not.

9. The principles governing condona6on of delay in land acquisi6on ma;ers have been consistently delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Collector, Land Acquisi"on, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Ka"ji and others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, it wa