Punjab & Haryana HC condones 5,831-day delay in land acquisition appeal, but denies interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period

The appellant, Joginder Singh, through his legal representative, challenged the award dated 12 March 2003 by which the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana did not grant the claimed compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

The appeal was filed with an application seeking condonation of a delay of 5,831 days

The appellant stated that he was unaware of the status of the proceedings and contended that similarly situated landowners had obtained enhanced compensation in appeals decided by the High Court

The State conceded that the appellant’s claim was covered by the High Court’s judgment dated 25 August 2008 in RFA-1881-2000, but submitted that, in view of the inordinate delay, the appellant could not be granted statutory benefits or interest for the delayed period

Whether the delay of 5,831 days in filing the appeal should be condoned in a land-acquisition matter where the appellant claims parity with similarly situated landowners?

Whether, upon condonation of delay, the appellant is entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the period of delay?

Whether the appellant’s claim for enhanced compensation is covered by the judgment in RFA-1881-2000 dated 25 August 2008?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, under which delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown, while recognising that the discretion must be exercised judicially and cannot override the public policy underlying limitation law. It also applied Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, governing appeals to the High Court against an award.

Relying on Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. v. The Special Deputy Collector, 2024 (12) SCC 336, the Court noted that although a liberal approach may be adopted under Section 5, inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence remain relevant considerations, and the mere fact that similarly situated persons obtained relief does not automatically entitle a delayed appellant to the same relief

Under Shivamma (Dead) v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, sufficient cause must cover the entire period of delay and courts should not mechanically condone enormous delays

However, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1599, Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 896, and Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3725, establish that a liberal and justice-oriented approach may be adopted in land-acquisition cases, particularly to ensure parity in compensation, but the acquiring body should not be saddled with statutory benefits or interest for the period attributable to the claimant’s delay

The Court treated the matter as a land-acquisition case requiring a liberal approach because the appellant sought compensation at par with similarly situated landowners and the State did not dispute that the claim was covered by the earlier judgment in RFA-1881-2000

Although the delay was exceptionally long—5,831 days—the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s land-acquisition jurisprudence permitting condonation of substantial delay to avoid unequal compensation among landowners

At the same time, the Court balanced the appellant’s entitlement to parity against the public financial burden and the principle that a party should not benefit from its own delay. Accordingly, it accepted the State’s submission that no statutory benefits or interest could be awarded for the delayed period

The main appeal was thereafter allowed in terms of the judgment dated 25 August 2008 in RFA-1881-2000, since the appellant’s claim was conceded to be covered by that decision

However, the appellant was expressly denied interest for the delayed period of 5,831 days and all statutory benefits

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of