01Facts
The appellant, through her legal representatives, sought condonation of a 3,039-day delay in filing an appeal against the Additional District Judge, Jind’s award dated 17 December 2013, which did not grant the claimed compensation.
p. 1 · p. 7She stated that she was unaware of the case’s status and relied on the fact that similarly situated landowners had obtained enhanced compensation.
p. 1The State accepted that the compensation claim was covered by this Court’s decision in Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, but opposed awarding statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period.
p. 1 · p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether the 3,039-day delay in filing the land-acquisition appeal should be condoned
p. 1 · p. 7ii.2. Whether, upon condoning the delay and allowing the appeal on the basis of the Kashmir Singh decision, the appellant was entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period
p. 2 · p. 3 · p. 4 · p. 703Law Applied
Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an appeal lies against an award made by the court under the Act.
p. 7The Supreme Court authorities cited by the Court—including New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi—support a liberal, justice-oriented approach to delay in land-acquisition appeals, so that delay does not necessarily defeat a landowner’s claim to just compensation.
p. 2 · p. 3 · p. 4 · p. 5 · p. 6However, where an appeal is delayed, the acquiring body should not be made liable for statutory benefits and interest attributable to the period of delay.
p. 2 · p. 3 · p. 4Provisions in the judgment · 1
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 54
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that the appellant’s compensation claim was covered by Kashmir Singh, and the State conceded that position.
p. 7Applying the cited Supreme Court decisions, the Court treated the land-acquisition context and the claim to parity in compensation as grounds to condone the delay, while applying the separate rule that the acquiring body should not bear statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period.
p. 2 · p. 3 · p. 4 · p. 5 · p. 6 · p. 705Holding
The Court allowed the application and condoned the 3,039-day delay, subject to the appellant not receiving statutory benefits or interest.
p. 7It then allowed the appeal in terms of Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, expressly excluding interest for the delayed period and statutory benefits.
p. 7Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
p. 8Original Court PDF
Ved Parkash Since Deceased Thr. His LrsvsState Of Haryana
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
