Punjab and Haryana High Court condones 4,847-day delay in land acquisition appeal, but denies interest and statutory benefits for delayed period

The appellant challenged the award dated 8 May 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, which had not granted the compensation claimed in respect of acquired land under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The appeal was filed with a delay of 4,847 days. The appellant sought condonation on the ground that he lacked knowledge of the status of the proceedings and that similarly situated landowners had succeeded in obtaining enhanced compensation.

The State accepted that the appellant’s claim was covered by the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 5 September 2017 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 8024–8074 of 2017, but submitted that statutory benefits and interest could not be granted for the delayed period.

Whether the delay of 4,847 days in filing the appeal should be condoned in a land-acquisition matter where similarly situated landowners had been granted enhanced compensation?

Whether, after condonation of the delay and grant of compensation at parity with similarly situated landowners, the appellant was entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period?

Whether the appellant’s claim was covered by the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 5 September 2017 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 8024–8074 of 2017?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned upon the establishment of “sufficient cause,” while recognising that limitation law serves the public policy of finality in litigation and cannot be disregarded merely on grounds of merits or parity with other litigants.

At the same time, the Court adopted the liberal, justice-oriented approach applicable to land-acquisition cases, particularly where landowners seek equal compensation for compulsory acquisition.

The Court further applied the principle that, although delayed appeals by landowners may be entertained and enhanced compensation may be granted, the acquiring body should not be burdened with statutory benefits or interest for the period attributable to the delay.

It also referred to Shivamma (Dead) v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, concerning the need for a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay, particularly in cases of inordinate delay.

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

Although the delay was extremely long, the State conceded that the appellant’s substantive compensation claim was covered by the applicable Supreme Court judgment.

In light of the liberal approach approved in land-acquisition cases, and the need to ensure parity among landowners, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 5 and condoned the delay.

However, applying the Supreme Court’s rule that delayed proceedings should not impose an additional financial burden on the acquiring authority, the Court excluded interest and statutory benefits for the entire delayed period of 4,847 days.

The appeal was consequently allowed in terms of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 5 September 2017 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 8024–8074 of 2017, as the appellant’s claim was squarely covered by that decision.

The appellant was expressly held not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 4,847 days or to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.