Jai Karan And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

219 Date of Decision: 30.10.2026

1. RFA-1200-2026 (O&M)

JAI KARAN & ANR. ...Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ...Respondents

2. RFA-1201-2026 (O&M)

OM PARKASH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ANR. ...Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Ankur Dua, Advocate for the appellants

Mr. Abhinash Jain, Additional Advocate General, Haryana


JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)


1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals,
with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this
common order.
CM-3035-CI-2026 in RFA-1200-2026 and
CM-3037-CI-2026 in RFA-1201-2026


1. The applicants through instant applications are seeking
condonation of delay of 2702 days in filing the main appeals.

2. The applicants are seeking condonation of delay on the
ground that they on account of death of Om Parkash (predecessor-in-
interest) ( in RFA-1201-2026 ) and due to lack of knowledge ( in RFA-1200-
2026 ) could not file appeal within limitation. The similarly situated
landowners filed appeals which stand allowed by this Court. They are
entitled to compensation at par with similarly situated landowners.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-1200-2026 and RFA-1201-2026 -2-

3. Learned State counsel respondents submits that claim of
appellants is covered by judgment of this Court, however, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that landowner would not be entitled
to statutory benefits and interest for the period of delay.

4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority Vs. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma
(Dead) Through Legal Heir & Anr. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1599 while
adverting to the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the High
Court has held that delay may be condoned and enhanced compensation
may be granted, however, the beneficiary/acquiring body cannot be
saddled with the liability of statutory benefits and interest. Relevant
extracts of the judgment read as:-
“5.2 Even otherwise as rightly observed by the High
Court, the land owners are not entitled to the
compensation at Rs.297/- per sq.yard considering the
decision of this Court in the case of Nanak (Deceased)
through LRS. (supra). Nothing was pointed out that how the
case of the land owners was comparable with that of the
case of Nanak (Deceased) through LRS. (supra). On the
contrary with respect to the acquisition of the year 1982, this
Hon'ble Court determined the compensation at Rs.149/- per
sq.yard in the case of Deo Karan & Ors.(supra).
5.3 However, at the same time the acquiring body and the
beneficiary of acquisition shall not be saddled with the
liability of statutory benefits and the interest which may be
available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
delayed period. In the present case the delay of 22 years can
be said to be a substantial delay. However, as the claimants
are held to be entitled the enhanced amount of
compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
High Court can be said to be justified in condoning the
delay. However, at the same time, the High Court has erred
in awarding other statutory benefits and interest for the
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-1200-2026 and RFA-1201-2026 -3-
delayed period. To saddle with the liability to pay statutory
benefits and interest for the delayed period upon the
beneficiary/acquiring body would be a financial burden
upon the public body and it may increase the project cost
which shall be against the public interests. It cannot be
disputed that the liability towards the statutory benefits and
the interest under the Act, 1984 would be a huge liability
considering the interest at the rate of 15% per annum,
solatium, price rise etc. Therefore, while condoning the delay
and enhancing the amount of compensation at par with other
land owners, the High Court ought not to have saddled the
liability upon the appellant to pay statutory benefits and the
interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the
delayed period. To the aforesaid extent the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court is
required to be modified and the present appeals are required
to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.”
[Emphasis supplied]

5. The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 23.04.2025 passed

in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 896 has
reiterated that applications seeking condonation of delay ought to be
considered by adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach. It has
been observed that the discretion vested in the Courts under the law of
limitation should be exercised to advance substantial justice, and that a
technical or pedantic approach should not defeat the adjudication of
disputes on their merits. Relevant extracts of the judgement read as:-
“9. Implementing in letter and spirit, the observations
made as above, i, e., a liberal approach in condonation of
delay, we notice that this Court in quite a few judgments
has condoned substantial delay. We may refer to some of
them. In Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana The Court
observed that even though there was long delay in filing
the appeals, it was a case of compulsory acquisition and
there had been a difference in the amount of compensation
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-1200-2026 and RFA-1201-2026 -4-
granted to some land losers vis-a-vis others. References
were also made to Market Committee Hodal v. Krishan
Murari wherein delay of 3240 days arising from the same
acquisition has been condoned. In Huchanagouda v.
Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer.,
this Court, taking into account the poverty and illiteracy of
the land loser, condoned the delay of more than 2000 days.
It was observed that equities had to be balanced by
ensuring that the determination of market value relates
back to the preliminary notification - making sure that
there is no prejudice to the acquiring authorities, as also
no undue advantage to the land loser. In other words, the
appellants who approached the Court with delay, would
not be granted interest for such period.
10. In Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project Selu,
District Parbhani, Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra,
this Court held that the Body acquiring land cannot be
saddled with the liability of paying interest for the period
of delay in preferring the appeals. The order of the High
Court, which granted interest also for five and half years'
delay, was modified to such an extent that interest shall
not be payable for delay. [See also Ningappa Thotappa
Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer.]
11. In all judgments referred supra, the common thread
that can be observed is that delay is not a reason to deny
the land losers their compensation, which is just, fair and
reasonable for the land they have lost.
12. This Court has noticed that in Delhi Air Tech Services
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., with reference to Coffee Board,
Karnataka, Bangalore v. Commission of Commercial Tax,
Karnataka that while the State has the power of eminent
domain, the owner of a land can only be divested thereof
in accordance with the procedure established by law after
appropriately compensating them. This is in view of
Article 300 A and 31A of the Constitution of India.”

DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-1200-2026 and RFA-1201-2026 -5-

6. The Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya
Devi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3725 while adopting a liberal
approach in condoning the delay in appeals preferred by landowners in
land acquisition matters, has deprecated a hyper-technical approach. It
has been observed that having regard to the beneficial nature of land
acquisition jurisprudence and the rights involved the matters ought to be
adjudicated on their merits rather than being rejected on technical ground
of delay. The parameters laid down by the Court are reproduced below:-
“47. It is pertinent for us to consider the judgment of this
Court in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020)
2 SCC 569, wherein it was held, inter alia, as follows:
“12.12. The contention advanced by the state of
delay and laches of the appellant in moving the
court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches
cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of
action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial
conscience of the court. Condonation of delay is a
matter of judicial discretion, which must be
exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts
and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon
the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy
claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There
is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts
to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do
substantial justice.
12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so
compelling, a constitutional court would exercise
its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and
not defeat it. [P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N.,
(1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22]”
[Emphasis supplied]
--- ---
49. Similarly, this Court in its decision in Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-1200-2026 and RFA-1201-2026 -6-
Motor Service, (1969) 1 SCR 808 held that:
“Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is
not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it
would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either
because the party has, by his conduct, done that
which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a
waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he
has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet
put the other party in a situation in which it would
not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were
afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases,
lapse of time and delay are most material. But in
every case, if an argument against relief, which
otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere
delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar
by any statute of limitations, the validity of that
defence must be tried upon principles substantially
equitable. Two circumstances, always important in
such cases, are, the length of the delay and the
nature of the acts done during the interval, which
might affect either party and cause a balance of
justice or injustice in taking the one course or the
other, so far as relates to the remedy.”
[Emphasis supplied]
--- ---
51. The decisions of this Court have consistently held that
the right to property is enshrined in the Constitution and
requires that procedural safeguards be followed to ensure
fairness and non-arbitrariness in decision-making
especially in cases of acquisition by the State. Therefore,
the delay in approaching the court, while a significant
factor, cannot override the necessity to address illegalities
and protect right to property enshrined in Article 300A.
The court must balance the need for finality in legal
proceedings with the need to rectify injustice. The right of
an individual to vindicate and protect private property
cannot be brushed away merely on the grounds of delay
and laches.”
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-1200-2026 and RFA-1201-2026 -7-


7. Learned counsel for the appellants on being confronted with
the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority (supra) , Suresh Kumar (supra) and Urban
Improvement Trust (supra) expressed his inability to controvert that in
view of inordinate delay, the appellant is not entitled to statutory benefits
and interest.

8. A conspectus of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court reveals that liberal approach in case of application of a landowner
seeking condonation of delay in land acquisition matter should be
adopted. The Court has approved condonation of delay of more than 20
years. Cases of landowners must not be treated at par with other cases.
Delay irrespective of number of years ought to be condoned.

9. In the wake of statement of both sides and afore-cited
judgments, applications for condonation of delay stand allowed and delay
in filing enclosed appeals is hereby condoned.
RFA-1200-2026 and RFA-1201-2026

1. The appellants through instant appeals under Section 54 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are seeking setting aside of award dated
05.12.2018 whereby Ld. Additional District Judge, Rohtak did not award
claimed amount of compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that issue
involved herein is squarely covered by order dated 10.04.2026 passed by
this Court in RFA-2208-2019 .

3. On being asked, learned State counsel concedes that
appellants’ claim is squarely covered by aforesaid said order.
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

RFA-1200-2026 and RFA-1201-2026 -8-

4. The appeal is hereby allowed in terms of order dated
10.04.2026 passed by this Court in RFA-2208-2019 . It is made clear that
appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period i.e. 2702
days and statutory benefits.

5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
October 30, 2026
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No
DEEPAK BISSYAN
2026.10.30 17:05
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment