Supreme Court directs High Court to reconsider land-acquisition appeals after condoning delay but denies interest for delayed period
Copy Link
Share
Save
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan heard appeals arising from the Punjab and Haryana High Court's refusal to condone long delays in filing appeals against a Reference Court award in land acquisition proceedings relating to Sector‑2, Bahadurgarh. The appeals challenged orders which declined to excuse delays in preferring appeals from the Reference Court's award dated 31 January 2005 in LAC matters.
The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned High Court orders and remanded the matters for fresh consideration on merits save and except the question of delay. The Court held that, applying a liberal approach to condonation, the delay "ought to have been condoned" because the appellants had an uncontroverted case that they had asked a person to file the appeal but it was not filed through no fault of theirs. The Court directed that for the period of delay that was condoned the appellants shall not be entitled to any interest, and asked the High Court to decide the remanded matters expeditiously. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
‘1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
-
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
-
“Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
-
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
-
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
-
It must be grasped that 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.
Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal.’”
Background The disputes arose from several parcels acquired by the State of Haryana for development of residential and commercial areas in Sector‑2, Bahadurgarh. Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 24 May 1996 culminated in Award No.3 dated 24 May 1998. Aggrieved landowners sought higher compensation; the Reference Court determined market value by an award dated 31 January 2005 at differing rates — for example Rs.5,25,000 per acre for land on Bahadurgarh‑Jhajjar road up to three acre depth — and awarded solatium and interest under Section 23(2). Subsequent decisions in related petitions had enhanced compensation in other matters up to Rs.15,00,000 by this Court in earlier proceedings.
The appellants contended that they had given documents to a person for filing appeals but the appeals were not filed; this position was not controverted. The High Court refused to condone delays, relying on earlier orders and recording absence of sufficient cause. The Supreme Court reviewed precedent emphasising a liberal approach to condonation of delay in land acquisition matters — notably Collector, Land Acquisition, Anand Nagar v. Mst. Katiji and other decisions — and observed that denying condonation could bar meritorious claims at the threshold. The Court noted prior authorities where substantial delays were condoned, and also recognised that interest for delayed periods should not be imposed against the acquiring authority in such circumstances. The appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on all aspects save delay; the appellants were excluded from entitlement to interest for the period of delay. The Registry was directed to transmit this order to the High Court Registrar General and pending applications were disposed.
Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 550 (C.A. arising out of SLP (C) No.670/2020 and SLP (C) No.2832/2020) Case Title: Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.; Laxmi Narain & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the reported order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the reported order
Similar Articles
Breaking News
