Punjab and Haryana High Court condones 4439-day delay in land compensation appeal, but denies interest and statutory benefits for delayed period

The appellants challenged the award dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, which did not grant them the claimed enhanced compensation in respect of acquired land.

The appeal was filed with a delay of 4,439 days, and the appellants sought condonation on the ground that similarly situated landowners had obtained enhanced compensation from the High Court and that they were entitled to compensation at par with them.

The State accepted that the appellants’ claim was covered by the High Court’s order dated 16.03.2026 in RFA-5681-2012, but submitted that statutory benefits and interest could not be granted for the delayed period.

Whether the delay of 4,439 days in filing the first appeal should be condoned in a land-acquisition matter where similarly situated landowners had received enhanced compensation?

Whether, upon condonation of the delay and grant of enhanced compensation, the appellants were entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the period of delay?

Whether the appellants’ claim for compensation was covered by the High Court’s decision in RFA-5681-2012 dated 16.03.2026?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned upon sufficient cause, while recognising that Section 3 embodies the public policy of finality of litigation and limitation cannot ordinarily be defeated by a merits-based approach.

Relying on Pathapati Subba Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector, 2024 (12) SCC 336, the Court noted that condonation is discretionary, that inordinate delay and want of due diligence remain relevant, and that merely because similarly situated persons obtained relief, delay is not automatically condoned.

However, the Court 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 land-acquisition cases warrant a liberal, justice-oriented approach because of the landowner’s constitutional right to property under Article 300-A.

Under New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rameshwar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1599, enhanced compensation may be granted after condoning substantial delay, but the acquiring body cannot be burdened with statutory benefits or interest for the delayed period.

The Court also referred to Shivamma (Dead) v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, which cautions against mechanically condoning massive delay, particularly where negligence or administrative inaction is unexplained.

The Court balanced the general principles favouring finality under limitation law against the beneficial character of land-acquisition jurisprudence and the need to ensure parity among similarly situated landowners.

Although the delay was exceptionally long, the State conceded that the appellants’ claim was covered by the decision in RFA-5681-2012, and the Court considered that the appellants should not be denied just compensation merely because they approached the Court belatedly.

At the same time, applying the principle in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, the Court protected the acquiring authority from the financial burden arising from the appellants’ delay by excluding statutory benefits and interest for the entire delayed period of 4,439 days.

The main appeal was thereafter allowed in terms of the order dated 16.03.2026 in RFA-5681-2012, thereby granting the appellants the relief applicable under that covered decision.

However, the appellants were expressly held not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 4,439 days or to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.