The Supreme Court of India has held that a delay in filing an appeal cannot be a valid reason to deprive landowners of fair and just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. This judgment came in the case of Suresh Kumar vs State of Haryana & Ors., where the appeal had been delayed by over 13 years.
“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 Court observed.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan heard the matter involving compensation for land acquired in Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
The land was taken for public purposes such as residential and commercial development. While the Reference Court awarded compensation in 2005, the appellants filed an appeal in the High Court after a delay of 4908 days. The High Court dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s refusal was not justified. The bench pointed out that liberal interpretation is necessary in land acquisition matters, especially considering poverty, illiteracy, and lack of legal awareness among affected landowners.
“When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred,” the Court quoted from earlier judgments.
Read Also:- Limitation For Suit Seeking Cancellation Of Deed Is 3 Years If Cancellation Is Main Relief: Supreme Court
Citing Article 300A of the Constitution, the Court emphasized that the right to property is a constitutional right, and citizens must be compensated fairly if deprived of their land. The Court also referenced its earlier rulings where delays of several years were condoned in similar cases, including the landmark case Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner.
“We are of the considered view that the delay ought to have been condoned, since the land loser had, in fact, asked for the appeal to be filed but it was not, for no fault of his,” the Court stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies State Responsibility for Medical Reimbursement of Retired Judges
However, the Court made it clear that no interest would be awarded for the delayed period, thus balancing the rights of both parties. The appeals were allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh consideration without being influenced by prior findings.
The Court directed the High Court to expedite the proceedings, given that the original award dates back to 2005.
Case Title: SURESH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR
