- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Imrat Lal And Others v. Land Acquisition Collector And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants’ land in Village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon formed part of 193.1 acres acquired by the Government of Haryana for developing Sector 52 (residential, commercial and institutional purposes) through a 1997 notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by a Section 6 declaration in 1998.
The Land Acquisition Collector’s award dated 3-5-2000 fixed rates between Rs 7,20,090 and Rs 12,00,000 per acre depending on land category. Dissatisfied, the appellants sought reference under Section 18. The Additional District Judge awarded compensation at Rs 717 per sq. yd. plus statutory benefits.
Several landowners appealed. On 1-10-2010, a Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sudama v. State of Haryana, RFA No. 1824/2006, enhanced compensation to Rs 1216 per sq. yd.
Nearly three years later the present appellants filed RFA No. 5477/2011 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 1110 days’ delay. The High Court dismissed that application, finding the explanation “vague,” and consequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The appellants have now approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellants demonstrated “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to justify condonation of a 1110-day delay in filing their appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.
- If the delay is condoned, whether the appellants are entitled to the same enhanced compensation (Rs 1216 per sq. yd.) earlier granted to similarly situated landowners in Sudama v. State of Haryana.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The High Court adopted a “hyper-technical” approach in rejecting their Section 5 application.
- In identical matters another Single Judge of the same High Court had condoned delay and granted enhanced compensation; parity required similar treatment.
Respondent State's Arguments
- The explanation for delay was wholly unsatisfactory and lacked basic particulars (e.g., names of claimants allegedly entrusted with filing the appeal).
- The High Court rightly found the appellants negligent and casual; therefore, no sufficient cause existed for condonation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sudama v. State of Haryana, RFA No. 1824 of 2006 (P&H High Court, 1-10-2010) | Enhanced compensation for similarly situated landowners to Rs 1216 per sq. yd. | Used as benchmark; Court granted the same rate to the present appellants to maintain parity. |
| Samiyathal v. Tahsildar, Civil Appeal No. 5335 of 2013 (Supreme Court, 5-7-2013) | Court’s liberal approach in land-acquisition compensation matters; directed extension of enhanced compensation even to non-petitioning landowners due to illiteracy/poverty. | Cited to justify a liberal, equitable approach in condoning delay where villagers may be ignorant of legal intricacies. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court agreed that the affidavits explaining the 1110-day delay were “extremely vague” yet stressed that courts should not ignore the realities faced by illiterate rural landowners unfamiliar with legal procedures. It highlighted:
- Villagers often rely on co-villagers or lawyers who may provide incomplete information; affidavits are usually drafted on “half-baked” facts.
- In land-acquisition cases involving claims for just compensation, a liberal approach is warranted—either allowing a better affidavit or recognising that other similarly situated persons have already received relief.
- The High Court failed to consider the equitable factor that similarly placed landowners had obtained enhanced compensation in Sudama.
- Relying on its own decision in Samiyathal v. Tahsildar, the Court underscored that justice should not be denied due to technical delay when substantive rights to adequate compensation are at stake.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, condoned the 1110-day delay, and directly awarded the appellants enhanced compensation of Rs 1216 per sq. yd. with statutory benefits. However, the appellants will not receive interest for the 1110-day period of delay. The State must pay within six months.
Implications: The decision reinforces a liberal, justice-oriented standard for condonation of delay in land-acquisition compensation cases, especially where illiteracy and lack of legal awareness prevail. While confined to the present parties, the ruling signals that technical defaults should not thwart substantive entitlement to fair compensation.
Order
1. Leave granted. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5-9-2011 RFA No. 5477 of 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application filed by them under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 1110 days' delay, the appellants have moved this Court.
2. The appellants' land situated in Village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was part of large chunk of land measuring 193.1 acres acquired by the Government of Haryana vide Notification dated 15-5-1997 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), which was followed by declaration dated 4-5-1998 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The purpose of acquisition was development of Sector 52 for residential, commercial and institutional purpose in District Gurgaon.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award dated 3-5-2000 whereby he fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs 12,00,000 per acre for Chahi, Rs 9,60,000 per acre for Allabarani, Rs 8,40,000 per acre for Bhood land and Rs 7,20,090 per acre for Banjar land. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the amount of compensation by the Court. The Additional District Judge, Gurgaon to whom the reference was entrusted considered the evidence produced by the parties and held that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 717 per square yard with other statutory benefits.
4. A number of landowners filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act, which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide judgment dated 1-10-2010 with the title case—Sudama v. State of Haryana RFA No. 1824 of 2006 and enhanced the compensation from Rs 717 per square yard to Rs 1216 per square yard.
5. After almost three years of the disposal of other appeals, the appellants filed RFA No. 5477 of 2011. They also filed CM No. 12357-CI/2011 for condonation of 1110 days' delay. The learned Single Judge of the High Court did not feel satisfied with the cause shown by the appellants and dismissed the application for condonation of delay by assigning the following reasons:
“Thus, a perusal of the averments made in this application would show that the appellants had given their brief to the other claimants to file an appeal before this Court and they came to know from the judgment of this Court that the other claimants have not filed an appeal on their behalf and in view of the aforesaid fact, the delay of 1110 days has been caused in filing this appeal. The explanation given by the appellants is not believable. So much so, the appellants have not mentioned the names of the other claimants to whom they have entrusted their appeals for filing before this Court. Even otherwise, it is not believable that a villager whose land has been acquired will not enquire about his case from a co-villager through whom the said appeal was filed, allegedly, for such a long period.
The averments made in this application shows that the appellants had been negligent and casual in their approach to file the appeal and they have woken up only when this Court had enhanced the compensation in other appeals. Thus, the explanation given is not accepted.
No sufficient cause to condone the extraordinary delay has been shown, therefore, prayer for condoning the delay in filing this appeal is rejected.”
6. As a sequel to dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal filed under Section 54 was dismissed as barred by time.
7. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was hypertechnical and he ignored the fact that in identical matters another learned Single Judge had allowed the appeals filed under Section 54 of the Act and granted substantial enhancement in the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court.
8. Shri Narender Hooda, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Haryana argued that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by dismissing the application for condonation of delay because the explanation given by the appellants was wholly unsatisfactory. He pointed out that the appellants had not disclosed the name of the claimants to whom they had entrusted their appeals for being filed in the Court and argued that the explanation given by the appellants was rightly discarded by the learned Single Judge.
9. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions and carefully scrutinised the record.
10. While we agree with Shri Narender Hooda that the averments contained in the application for condonation of delay were extremely vague and did not provide satisfactory explanation for the long delay of 1110 days, but it cannot be ignored that in identical matters the another learned Single Judge had granted relief to the landowners by enhancing the compensation and this factor should not have been overlooked by the learned Single Judge while deciding the application for condonation of delay.
11. We can take judicial notice of the fact that the villagers in our country are by and large illiterate and are not conversant with the intricacies of law. They are usually guided by their co-villagers, who are familiar with the proceedings in the courts or the advocates with whom they get in touch for redressal of their grievance. Affidavits filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay are usually drafted by the advocates on the basis of half-baked information made available by the affected persons. Therefore, in the acquisition matters involving claim for award of just compensation, the court should adopt a liberal approach and either grant time to the party to file a better affidavit to explain delay or suo motu take cognizance of the fact that large number of other similarly situated persons who were affected by the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court have been granted relief.
12. In Samiyathal v. Tahsildar Civil Appeal No. 5335 of 2013 decided on 5-7-2013, this Court took cognizance of the fact that many landowners may not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for grant of enhanced compensation due to illiteracy, poverty and ignorance and issued direction that those who have not filed special leave petition should be given enhanced compensation. The relevant portion of the judgment passed in that case is extracted below:
“We further direct the respondents and the State of Tamil Nadu to pay the same amount of compensation to other landowners whose land was acquired by the Notification dated 22-5-1991, but who may have on account of ignorance, poverty and other similar handicaps, not been able to approach the Reference Court or may not have been able to contest the matter before the High Court and this Court. The needful be done in respect of other landowners within a period of six months. This direction has been given in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.”
13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order RFA No. 5477 of 2011 is set aside and the delay in filing RFA No. 5477 of 2011 by the appellants is condoned.
14. At this stage, Shri Narender Hooda very fairly stated that instead of remanding the case to the High Court for consideration of the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Act, the Court may grant relief to them in terms of the judgment dated 1-10-2010 passed in Sudama v. State of Haryana RFA No. 1824 of 2006 and connected matters but this order may be confined to the present case.
15. We appreciate the statement made by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General and hold that the appellants shall be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs 1216 per square yard with other statutory benefits. However, it is made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay i.e 1110 days. The respondents shall pay the amount of enhanced compensation and other statutory benefits to the appellants within a period of six months from today.
Alert