11-year delay condoned in land acquisition appeal; Punjab and Haryana HC denies interest and statutory benefits for delayed period

The appellant challenged the award dated 29.10.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula, which allegedly denied him the claimed compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The appeal was filed with an application seeking condonation of 4,142 days’ delay, principally on the ground that the appellant was unaware of the status of the proceedings and that similarly situated landowners had obtained enhanced compensation from the High Court.

The State conceded that the appellant’s claim was covered by the High Court’s earlier judgment dated 10.01.2020 in RFA-1235-2018, but submitted that no statutory benefits or interest should be awarded for the delayed period.

1. Whether the delay of 4,142 days in filing the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be condoned

2. Whether, after condonation of the delay, the appellant was entitled to compensation in terms of the judgment in RFA-1235-2018

3. Whether the appellant was entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the period of delay

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned only upon sufficient cause, while recognising that the discretion must be exercised judiciously and cannot defeat the public policy underlying limitation law.

It relied on Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. v. The Special Deputy Collector, 2024 (12) SCC 336, which holds that inordinate delay, negligence and lack of due diligence may justify refusal of condonation, and that merits ordinarily should not be examined at the condonation stage.

It considered Shivamma (Dead) v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, concerning the need for a bona fide explanation throughout the period of delay.

In land-acquisition matters, however, the Court relied on New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1599, and Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 896, which permit a liberal approach to condoning delay so that landowners receive just compensation, while excluding interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period.

It also relied on Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3725, emphasising that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution and the beneficial nature of land-acquisition law warrant adjudication on merits rather than hyper-technical rejection on limitation grounds.

The Court acknowledged that a delay of 4,142 days was inordinate and that limitation principles ordinarily require a satisfactory explanation for the entire period.

Nevertheless, it distinguished land-acquisition appeals from ordinary litigation, observing that the Supreme Court has approved condonation of delays exceeding 20 years where similarly situated landowners were granted higher compensation.

Since the State conceded that the appellant’s claim was squarely covered by the judgment in RFA-1235-2018, and since denial of parity would adversely affect the appellant’s constitutional and substantive property interests, the Court adopted a liberal, justice-oriented approach and condoned the delay.

At the same time, applying the safeguards recognised in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Suresh Kumar, it balanced the appellant’s entitlement to enhanced compensation against the public financial burden by excluding interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period.

The appeal was allowed in terms of the High Court’s judgment dated 10.01.2020 in RFA-1235-2018, thereby granting the appellant the compensation available under that precedent.

However, the appellant was expressly denied interest for the delayed period of 4,142 days and statutory benefits.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.