Delay Not A Reason To Deny Land Losers Their Just, Fair & Reasonable Compensation: Supreme Court
The Appeals before the Apex Court were filed challenging the final judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the delay in preferring the appeals was refused to be condoned.

Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the landowners in an acquisition case and observed 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 Appeals before the Apex Court were filed challenging the final judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the delay in preferring the appeals before the High Court was not condoned.
Referring to various judgments of the Apex Court where delay has been condoned, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan said, “ In all judgments referred supra, the common thread that can be observed is 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.”
AOR Jay Kishor Singh represented the Appellant while AOR Samar Vijay Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
Several parcels of land were acquired by the State for the development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial areas in Bahadurgarh. The land of the instant petitioners was acquired with the issuance of a Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The proceedings culminated in the issuance of an Award, and the Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation depending upon different categories of land, ranging from Rs.2 lakh per acre to Rs.. 4.75 lakh per acre. The landowners, including the present appellant, preferred a petition claiming higher compensation and such reference was allowed.
It was the appellant’s case before the High Court that the documents had been given to the concerned person to file an appeal against the order of the Reference Court, but the same was not filed. In one of the cases which arose from the same acquisition and was also the subject matter in the present case, the High Court rejected the application for a condonation of delay of 4908 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Reference Court.It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.
Issue
The issue before the Bench was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in the present lis which concerned compensation for land acquired by the State for public purposes.
Reasoning
Reiterating that a liberal approach is to be followed in such cases, the Bench noted that the Apex Court in quite a few judgments has condoned substantial delay.
The Bench further noticed that in Market Committee Hodal v. Krishan Murari (1996) a delay of 3240 days arising from the same acquisition had been condoned. Similarly in Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. (2020), taking into account the poverty and illiteracy of the land loser, the Apex Court had condoned the delay of more than 2000 days.
Reference was also made to the judgment in Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2022) where it has been held that 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. This is in view of Article 300 A and 31A of the Constitution of India.
“In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that 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”, it held.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Apex Court remanded the matters to the High Court for consideration afresh, on all aspects, save and except delay. “However, for the delayed period that is being condoned, the appellant shall not be entitled to any interest”, it held while directing expeditious disposal of cases.
Cause Title: Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 550)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Jay Kishor Singh
Respondent: AOR Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Sabarni Som, Amit Ojha, Aman Dev Sharma, Fateh Singh, Keshav Mittal, AOR Sanjay Kumar Visen