IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-830-2024 (O&M) Decided on:-07.04.2026 Lilu Ram ....Appellant.

vs.

State of Haryana and others .Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Abhinash Jain, DAG, Haryana.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

CM-2080-CI-2024

1. Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of

3180 days in filing the appeal.

2. Short reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Prince Saini, Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.6 Hisar, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 in Court today and the same is taken on record.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application as well as reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3.

4. Concededly, the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for award of compensation vide judgment dated 11.12.2019 passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals, lead case of which was RFA-372-2019 (O&M)

titled as “Harbans and others vs. State of Haryana and others”.

5. Based thereupon, besides applying the principle of parity, the applicant-landowner being similarly situated, is entitled for grant of similar benefits, however, without any payment of interest for the period he failed to approach this Court after the decision of the learned 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 undue benefit for the delayed period. We grant such indulgence in the appellant’s favour also for the reason that a batch of first appeals at the instance of other land owners was still pending consideration before the High Court. All that the High Court ought to have emphatically denied to the late-comers was the benefit of interest including on the solatium, under Section 34 of the Act for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court till the filing of the first appeals.”

6. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the application is allowed and delay of 3180 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

Main case

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an Award dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the reference petition preferred at the instance of appellant-landowner, was dismissed.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal is squarely covered by Harbans’s case (supra), which was decided in terms of decision dated 29.10.2015 passed by this Court in RFA-4584-2015, titled as “Seema Devi vs. State of Haryana and others” whereby, the market value of the acquired land situated in the revenue estate of village Ramsara, Tehsil & D