Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/vmvo/
Case Name: Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.; Laxmi Narain & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 550
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Manmohan, JJ.
Date of Decision: April 23, 2025
Case Numbers: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 670/2020 and 2832/2020)
Land Acquisition – Condonation of Delay – Compensation – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Article 300A, Constitution of India
Reels
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/reel/593726897086991
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJlHpMxAKZn
Youtube: https://youtube.com/shorts/YXgSL6XQDnA
Facts
The appeals stem from the acquisition of land in Bahadurgarh, Haryana, for residential and commercial development in Sector-2, notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on May 24, 1996. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 4.75 lakh per acre in 1998. The Reference Court, on January 31, 2005, enhanced this to Rs. 5.25 lakh per acre for certain lands, Rs. 3 lakh per acre for Nehri and Chahi land, and Rs. 2.5 lakh per acre for Barani and other land, along with 30% solatium, interest, and additional amounts. Appellants, seeking further enhancement based on higher awards (up to Rs. 15 lakh per acre) in similar cases, faced dismissal by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on October 30, 2019, for failing to condone delays of up to 4908 days in filing appeals against the Reference Court’s order. Suresh Kumar claimed the appeal was not filed despite instructions, while Laxmi Narain’s application lacked sufficient cause for delay.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing appeals against the Reference Court’s order.
- Whether the appellants were entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land.
Arguments
- Appellants: Argued that the delay was unintentional, with Suresh Kumar asserting that the appeal was not filed despite instructions. They cited higher compensation awarded in similar cases and relied on precedents like Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 for a liberal approach to condonation in land acquisition cases.
- Respondents: Contended that the appellants failed to provide sufficient cause for the substantial delay, justifying the High Court’s dismissal.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s orders, and condoned the delay, emphasizing a liberal approach in land acquisition cases to ensure substantial justice, as per Mst. Katiji. The uncontroverted fact that Suresh Kumar had instructed filing supported condonation. The matters were remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, excluding delay, with a directive for expeditious disposal due to the 2005 award. To balance equities, no interest was allowed for the condoned delay period.
Ratio Decidendi
- Courts should adopt a liberal approach to condoning delays in land acquisition cases to prevent defeating meritorious claims, especially when delays are not deliberate.
- The State’s eminent domain power under Article 300A requires fair compensation, but interest for condoned delay periods is excluded to avoid prejudice to the acquiring authority.
Obiter Dicta
- Delays should not deny landowners just compensation, particularly when higher awards have been granted in similar acquisitions.
- The judiciary’s respect stems from its ability to remove injustice, not from technical dismissals.
Disposition
Appeals allowed, High Court orders set aside, matters remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, no interest for condoned delay period.
Precedents Cited
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107
- The Supreme Court advocated a liberal approach to condoning delays in filing appeals, emphasizing that justice should not be defeated on technical grounds.
- Key principles include:
- A litigant does not benefit by delaying an appeal.
- Refusing to condone delay may dismiss a meritorious case at the threshold, defeating justice, whereas condoning delay allows a case to be decided on merits.
- The requirement to explain every day’s delay should not be applied pedantically but in a rational, pragmatic manner.
- Substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations.
- There is no presumption of deliberate delay, negligence, or mala fides; litigants risk loss by delaying.
- The judiciary’s respect lies in its ability to remove injustice, not in legalizing it on technical grounds.
- The Court noted that this liberal approach had not fully percolated to lower courts, urging a justice-oriented perspective.
- Pathapati Subba Reddy v. LAO, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513
- Referred to as supporting the liberal approach to condonation of delay, aligning with the principles in Mst. Katiji.
- Specific observations from the case are not detailed in the judgment, but its citation implies reinforcement of the need to prioritize substantial justice in land acquisition matters.
- Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 127
- The Court condoned long delays in filing appeals in a land acquisition case, noting the compulsory nature of acquisition and disparities in compensation awarded to different landowners.
- Highlighted the need to ensure fairness in compensation, even when appeals are filed late, to address inequities among land losers.
- Market Committee Hodal v. Krishan Murari, (1996) 1 SCC 311
- The Supreme Court condoned a delay of 3240 days in a case arising from the same acquisition, indicating a precedent for allowing substantial delays in land acquisition matters.
- Emphasized the importance of addressing meritorious claims despite significant delays to ensure just compensation.
- Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., (2020) 19 SCC 234
- The Court condoned a delay of over 2000 days, considering the poverty and illiteracy of the land loser.
- Stressed balancing equities by ensuring the market value determination relates back to the preliminary notification, avoiding prejudice to acquiring authorities and undue advantage to land losers.
- Interest for the delayed period was not granted to maintain fairness.
- Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project Selu, District Parbhani, Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 255
- Observations:
- Held that the acquiring body should not be liable for interest on the delayed period when appeals are filed late.
- Modified a High Court order granting interest for a five-and-a-half-year delay, ruling that no interest should be payable for the condoned delay to avoid burdening the acquiring authority.
- Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., (2020) 19 SCC 599
- Supported the principle that interest should not be awarded for the period of delay in filing appeals, aligning with the approach in Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project.
- Emphasized protecting acquiring authorities from additional financial liability due to delayed appeals.
- Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408
- Referred to in the context of Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Karnataka ((1988) 3 SCC 263), affirming that the State’s power of eminent domain under Article 300A and 31A of the Constitution requires divestment of land only through lawful procedures and with appropriate compensation.
- Underlined the constitutional mandate for fair compensation to landowners in acquisition proceedings.
- Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Karnataka, (1988) 3 SCC 263
- Cited indirectly through Delhi Air Tech Services to reinforce that land acquisition must adhere to legal procedures and provide just compensation, in line with constitutional protections under Articles 300A and 31A.
- Emphasized the balance between the State’s eminent domain power and the landowner’s right to fair compensation.
Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)
- What was the primary issue before the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2025 INSC 550)?
a) Validity of the land acquisition notification
b) Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone delay in filing appeals
c) Determination of the market value of acquired land
d) Constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Answer: b) Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone delay in filing appeals - What was the maximum delay in filing appeals before the High Court in this case?
a) 3240 days
b) 4908 days
c) 2000 days
d) 5700 days Answer: b) 4908 days - Which precedent was heavily relied upon by the Supreme Court for adopting a liberal approach to condoning delay?
a) Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
b) Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
c) Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project v. State of Maharashtra
d) Dhiraj Singh v. State of Haryana Answer: b) Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji - What condition did the Supreme Court impose while condoning the delay in this case?
a) Payment of additional costs by the appellants
b) No interest for the condoned delay period
c) Reduction in compensation amount
d) Exclusion of solatium for the appellants Answer: b) No interest for the condoned delay period - What was the highest compensation per acre awarded in similar cases, as noted in the judgment?
a) Rs. 5,25,000
b) Rs. 10,00,000
c) Rs. 15,00,000
d) Rs. 4,75,000 Answer: c) Rs. 15,00,000 - Under which constitutional provision was the State’s power of eminent domain discussed in the judgment?
a) Article 14
b) Article 300A
c) Article 21
d) Article 19 Answer: b) Article 300A - What was the Supreme Court’s directive to the High Court after allowing the appeals?
a) To dismiss the appeals on merits
b) To reconsider the appeals on merits, excluding delay, and decide expeditiously
c) To award interest for the entire delay period
d) To uphold the Reference Court’s compensation award Answer: b) To reconsider the appeals on merits, excluding delay, and decide expeditiously - Which case was cited to support the principle that no interest should be paid for the condoned delay period?
a) Market Committee Hodal v. Krishan Murari
b) Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project v. State of Maharashtra
c) Pathapati Subba Reddy v. LAO
d) Coffee Board, Karnataka v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax Answer: b) Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project v. State of Maharashtra
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- What was the main reason the Supreme Court condoned the delay in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.?
The Supreme Court condoned the delay because it adopted a liberal approach, as established in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, to ensure substantial justice in land acquisition cases. It noted the uncontroverted fact that appellant Suresh Kumar had instructed the filing of an appeal, which was not done due to no fault of his own, and refusing condonation would defeat a meritorious claim. - Why did the Supreme Court refuse interest for the condoned delay period?
To balance equities and avoid prejudice to the acquiring authority, the Court followed precedents like Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 3 SCC 255, which held that the acquiring body should not be liable for interest on the delayed period. This ensures fairness to both landowners and the State. - What was the original compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, and how was it modified by the Reference Court?
The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 4.75 lakh per acre in 1998. The Reference Court, on January 31, 2005, enhanced this to Rs. 5.25 lakh per acre for land on Bahadurgarh-Jhajjar road (up to three acres depth), Rs. 3 lakh per acre for Nehri and Chahi land, and Rs. 2.5 lakh per acre for Barani and other land, along with 30% solatium, interest, and additional amounts. - What role did Article 300A play in the judgment?
Article 300A was cited to emphasize that the State’s power of eminent domain requires divestment of land only through lawful procedures and with appropriate compensation. The Court referenced Delhi Air Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408) to underline the constitutional mandate for fair compensation in land acquisition. - What instructions did the Supreme Court give to the High Court after remanding the case?
The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider the appeals on all aspects, except delay, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations. It also requested expeditious disposal due to the Reference Court’s award being from 2005 and instructed the Registry to transmit the order to the High Court for follow-up action. - How did the Supreme Court justify condoning a delay of up to 4908 days?
The Court justified condoning the delay by citing precedents like Market Committee Hodal v. Krishan Murari (1996) 1 SCC 311 (3240 days condoned) and Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner (2020) 19 SCC 234 (over 2000 days condoned). It emphasized that delays in land acquisition cases should not deny landowners just compensation, especially when higher awards were granted in similar cases, and no deliberate fault was attributable. - What was the significance of the Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji case in this judgment?
The Mst. Katiji case (1987) 2 SCC 107 provided the foundational principles for a liberal approach to condoning delays, emphasizing that refusing condonation could defeat justice, while condoning allows merits-based decisions. The Supreme Court applied these principles to prioritize substantial justice over technical dismissals in land acquisition matters. - Why was the case remanded to the High Court instead of the Supreme Court deciding on the compensation amount?
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court to ensure a fresh consideration of the appeals on merits, as the High Court had dismissed them solely on the ground provveded that the Supreme Court focused on condoning the delay rather than adjudicating the compensation issue. The Court aimed to allow the High Court to evaluate the evidence and arguments for enhanced compensation, ensuring a fair and thorough review uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations.