Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan has condoned substantial delays in appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings. The Bench remanded the matters to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for fresh consideration while withholding interest for the period of delay.

The Court stated on appeals challenging the rejection of delay condonation applications by the High Court in cases pertaining to compensation disputes related to lands acquired for development in Sector-2, Bahadurgarh.

Also Read: “Individual Excellence May Lead to Superiority Complex”: Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Promotion to Kerala IAS Officer Raju Narayana Swamy

The directive was unequivocal: "the delay ought to have been condoned, since the position that the land loser had, in fact, asked for the appeal to be filed but it was not, for no fault of his, is an uncontroverted position of fact."

The dispute stems from the acquisition of several parcels of land by the State of Haryana for public purposes, namely the development of residential and commercial infrastructure in Bahadurgarh's Sector-2. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued via Notification No. LAC (H) No.96/2141 dated 24 May 1996. The Award No.3 was announced on 24 May 1998 by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Hisar.

The awarded compensation ranged from Rs.2 lakh per acre to Rs.4.75 lakh per acre based on land classification. The landowners, including the appellants in the present matters, sought enhanced compensation through petitions before the Reference Court.

The Reference Court, vide Award dated 31 January 2005, revised the compensation as follows:

• "market value of the acquired pieces of land at the rate of Rs.5,25,000/- per acre on Bahadurgarh-Jhajjar road up to the depth of three acre; at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre regarding Nehri and Chahi land and at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre regarding Barani and other land."

Additional entitlements included solatium at 30% under Section 23(2), interest at 9% per annum for one year from the date of possession and 15% thereafter, and additional amounts under Section 45.

Despite this, the appellants failed to file appeals against the Reference Court's Award within time. In Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.670 of 2020 (Suresh Kumar) and Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No.2832 of 2020 (Laxmi Narain & Anr.), the High Court rejected the delay condonation applications, citing lack of "sufficient cause" for delays of up to 4908 days.

Suresh Kumar submitted that he had entrusted the filing of the appeal to a concerned individual, but it was not filed. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not consider this contention in its decision.

The appellants invoked precedents where this Court had taken a liberal view in condoning delay in land acquisition matters. Among them were:

• Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107], where the Court observed: "Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made... the doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner."

• Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2014) 14 SCC 127], where a long delay was condoned owing to discrepancies in compensation among similarly situated landowners.

• Market Committee Hodal v. Krishan Murari [(1996) 1 SCC 311], involving condonation of 3240 days delay.

• Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. [(2020) 19 SCC 234], wherein delay was excused considering poverty and illiteracy.

The Court held its view that "delay is not a reason to deny the land losers their compensation, which is just, fair and reasonable for the land they have lost."

The principle was further reinforced by reference to Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project Selu v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2020) 3 SCC 255], where the delay was condoned, but interest was disallowed for the delay period. Similar guidance was drawn from Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. [(2020) 19 SCC 599].

The Court also stated the constitutional basis for compensating landowners in compulsory acquisition cases, noting: "while the State has the power of eminent domain, the owner of a land can only be divested thereof in accordance with the procedure established by law after appropriately compensating them."

The Court observed that the High Court should have adopted a justice-oriented perspective: "Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated."

It stated further: "The judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."

Accordingly, the Division Bench held that: "we are of the considered view that the delay ought to have been condoned... Consequently, the appeals are allowed."

Also Read: State Cannot Challenge Lawful ED Search of TASMAC: Madras High Court Dismisses Petitions, Says Detention During Search Not Harassment

The impugned judgment and orders of the High Court rejecting condonation of delay were set aside. The matters were remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh on all issues except delay. The High Court was requested to decide the remanded cases expeditiously considering the age of the Award. The appellants would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay.

"The Registry is requested to transmit a copy of this order to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, for necessary follow up action."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR; Ms. Sabarni Som, Advocate; Mr. Amit Ojha, Advocate; Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Fateh Singh, Advocate; Mr. Keshav Mittal, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR

Case Title: Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.; Laxmi Narain & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 550

Case Number: Civil Appeal No.of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 670/2020 and 2832/2020) 

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Manmohan

[Read/Download order]