Unexplained inordinate delay without sufficient cause warrants dismissal of a land-acquisition compensation appeal.

The appellant’s land situated in Village Shahbad Daulatpur was acquired, and the Land Acquisition Collector assessed its market value at ₹12.96 lakhs per acre.

The appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming enhancement.

The Reference Court enhanced/confirmed the compensation by relying on Hem Chander Malik v. Union of India, LA.APP. 358/2007, decided on 26 September 2011, in which compensation for similarly situated land acquired under the same notification was determined at ₹12,96,455.89 per acre.

The appellant thereafter filed the present appeal with a delay of 1,559 days and sought condonation of delay.

He also claimed additional compensation for crops, trees and a tubewell, but had led no evidence to substantiate those claims.

Whether the delay of 1,559 days in filing the appeal ought to be condoned on the basis of the explanation furnished by the appellant.

Whether the appellant was entitled to any further enhancement of compensation beyond the amount determined in accordance with Hem Chander Malik.

Whether the appellant was entitled to additional compensation for crops, trees and a tubewell in the absence of supporting evidence.

The Court applied the principle that delay in filing an appeal may be condoned only where the applicant demonstrates “sufficient cause,” particularly when the delay is inordinate.

It also applied Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, governing references against the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector.

For valuation, the Court relied on Hem Chander Malik v. Union of India, which determined the market value of similarly situated land in Village Shahbad Daulatpur acquired under the same notification at ₹12,96,455.89 per acre.

A claimant seeking additional compensation must lead evidence substantiating the relevant loss or inadequacy of the amount awarded.

The Court held that the appellant had offered no satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delay of 1,559 days, and therefore failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation.

On merits, the Reference Court had correctly relied on Hem Chander Malik, particularly because the appellant himself had conceded that compensation should be determined in accordance with that judgment and the lands were similarly situated and covered by the same notification.

The appellant did not identify any error in that valuation or produce evidence warranting a different determination.

His claims for crops, trees and a tubewell also failed because no evidence was led to show either their existence, the loss suffered, or the insufficiency of the compensation awarded.

The Court further noted that the judgment in Hem Chander Malik had not been challenged before the Supreme Court by any party.

It also found no merit in the claim for further enhancement or additional compensation for crops, trees and the tubewell.

The applications seeking condonation of delay and the appeal were accordingly dismissed.

The appellant remained entitled only to the compensation awarded in accordance with Hem Chander Malik, subject to the applicable determination by the High Court or the Supreme Court.