Punjab and Haryana High Court condones 15-year delay in land acquisition appeal but denies interest and statutory benefits for delayed period

The appellants, landowners represented through legal representatives, filed appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the award dated 30.07.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the claimed enhancement in compensation was not granted.

The appeals were filed after a delay of 5,629 days. The appellants pleaded that they were unaware of the status of the proceedings and claimed parity with similarly situated landowners whose appeals had been allowed by the High Court.

The State conceded that the appellants’ claim was covered by the High Court’s order dated 02.11.2018 in RFA-1006-2010, but contended that statutory benefits and interest could not be awarded for the delayed period.

Whether the delay of 5,629 days in filing the appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be condoned in favour of the landowners.

Whether, after condonation of the delay and grant of enhanced compensation at par with similarly situated landowners, the appellants were entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period.

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned upon sufficient cause, while recognising that limitation provisions serve the public policy of bringing litigation to an end.

Relying on Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs v. Special Deputy Collector, 2024 (12) SCC 336, the Court noted that condonation is discretionary, that merits ordinarily should not determine a delay application, and that mere success of similarly situated persons does not automatically justify condonation.

The Court also considered Shivamma (Dead) v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, which cautions against condoning inordinate delay without sufficient explanation.

However, in land-acquisition cases, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1599, permits condonation and parity in compensation while excluding statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period.

The Court further relied on Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 896, and Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3725, for the principle that a liberal, justice-oriented approach should generally be adopted in land-acquisition matters, particularly to protect the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A.

The Court distinguished ordinary limitation cases from land-acquisition appeals involving compulsory deprivation of property and unequal compensation among similarly situated landowners.

Although the delay was extremely long, the appellants’ claim was admittedly covered by a prior judgment granting relief to similarly situated landowners.

Balancing finality against the need to award just compensation for acquired land, the Court adopted the liberal approach approved in the land-acquisition precedents and held that the delay should be condoned.

At the same time, to prevent prejudice and an additional financial burden on the acquiring authority, the Court applied the rule that interest and statutory benefits cannot be granted for the period attributable to the appellants’ delay.

The connected appeals were allowed in terms of the High Court’s order dated 02.11.2018 in RFA-1006-2010, thereby granting the appellants the applicable enhanced compensation at parity with similarly situated landowners.

However, the appellants were expressly denied interest for the delayed period of 5,629 days and all statutory benefits.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.