SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
IQBAL SINGH AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
RA-RF_177_2023



##PAGE1##

1 CM-1966-CI-2023 in/and RA-RF-177-2023 IN RFA-2227-2008

301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM-1966-CI-2023 in/and RA-RF-177-2023

IN RFA-2227-2008

Date of Decision: May 13, 2026

IQBAL SINGH AND ORS ......Appellants

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

CM-1966-CI-2023

1. By way of present application, prayer has been made for condoning

the delay of 1905 days in filing the review application.

2. Learned counsel representing the respondent-State has failed to

file reply to the application despite been afforded sufficient opportunity.

3. Concededly, the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to

the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the

enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to the land situated in

revenue estate of Village Marauli Kalan/Marauli Khurd, Tehsil Kharar,

District Roopnagar (now SAS Nagar), to the tune of Rs.10,46,742/- per

acre.

4. Based thereupon, applying the principle of parity, the land

owner/applicant being similarly situated, is entitled for grant of similar

amount of compensation, however except the payment of interest for the

period they failed to approach this Court after the decision of the

Reference Court. In this regard reliance can be placed upon the decision

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

TEJWINDER SINGH

2026.05.29 17:00

I agree to specified portions

of this document

##PAGE2##

2 CM-1966-CI-2023 in/and RA-RF-177-2023 IN RFA-2227-2008

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

5. In view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as on the basis

of contents of the application, the prayer made herein is allowed.

Accordingly, delay of 1905 days in filing the review application is hereby

condoned.

REVIEW APPLICATION

1. Prayer in the present application is for review of the order dated

18.01.2016 passed by this Court in main appeal(s), which was decided

along with connected appeal bearing RFA-2207-2008, being partially

allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.8

lakhs per acre.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter

pertaining to the same acquisition/notification covering the same revenue

estate i.e. Village Marauli Kalan/Marauli Khurd, Tehsil Kharar, D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top