Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners

“Dismissal of SLPs for Default Does Not Bar Review—Doctrine of Merger Inapplicable Where No Speaking Order Exists”, In a vital ruling reinforcing equitable land acquisition jurisprudence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on December 2, 2025, in Harke (since deceased) through his LRs and others v. State of Haryana and others (CM-4068-CI-2019 in/and RA-RF-250-2023 in RFA-2647-2004 & Connected Matters), allowed a series of review petitions filed after a delay of over 12 years, granting the applicants enhanced compensation at ₹20 lakh per acre, in line with similarly placed landowners. Justice Deepak Gupta held that procedural delay cannot be allowed to override substantive entitlement, especially where valuable property rights are at stake under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

Court Condones 12-Year Delay, But Denies Interest for Period of Inaction to Balance Equity

The court dealt with 15 review applications, each seeking reconsideration of a common judgment dated 10.02.2009 in a land acquisition dispute arising from compulsory acquisition of lands in Bahadurgarh under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The applicants—legal representatives of deceased landowner Harke Ram—sought parity in compensation with those landowners whose lands were acquired through the same notification dated 12.05.1995 under Section 4 and same declaration dated 10.05.1996 under Section 6.

The State opposed both the maintainability of the review and the condonation of delay. It contended that since the petitioners’ Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court had been dismissed for non-prosecution in 2012—and restoration applications rejected in 2014—no review could be entertained. It further argued that the delay of 4557 to 4586 days was inexcusable.

The Court disagreed, observing:

“The dismissal of SLPs for want of prosecution is procedural in nature, and does not result in merger of the High Court’s judgment. The doctrine of merger applies only when there is a speaking order or the SLP is granted.”
(Para 19, relying on Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376)*

Justice Gupta noted that refusing to condone the delay would create an “anomalous and inequitable situation” where landowners under the same acquisition would be compensated differently, violating the principles of fairness and equality.

“Technicalities cannot be permitted to defeat substantive justice. Landowners do not stand to benefit by lodging delayed claims unless they are entitled to relief under law.”
(Para 21, referring to Collector, LA, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107*)

While condoning the delay, the Court balanced equities by denying interest on the enhanced compensation for the entire period of delay.

"Right to Parity is Part of Fair Compensation": ₹20 Lakh Per Acre Awarded as Per Supreme Court's Rajender Singh Judgment

The applicants were seeking parity with other landowners whose compensation had been successively enhanced, most recently by the Supreme Court in Rajender Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana (C.A. No.19354/2017), where the apex court fixed ₹20,00,000/- per acre as market value for land situated in Bahadurgarh, and ₹15,00,000/- for nearby villages like Bir Barkatbad, Balore, and Sarai Aurangabad.

“Once the Supreme Court has held that land situated in Bahadurgarh is to be compensated at ₹20,00,000/- per acre, it would be wholly unjustified to deny the same benefit to the present appellants whose lands were acquired under the same notification.”
(Para 25)

The Court also recorded that the State did not dispute the location, acquisition notification, or the applicants' entitlement, and had fairly conceded that other similarly placed landowners had already received the benefit.

“Dismissal for Non-Prosecution is Not Final Adjudication” – Review Held Maintainable Despite Rejected SLPs

The core question of maintainability was answered in the affirmative, with the Court distinguishing between dismissal on merits and procedural dismissals. It cited the binding precedent in Kunhayammed (supra), holding:

“The mere dismissal of the SLPs for want of prosecution does not preclude the applicants from seeking review of the 2009 judgment before this Court.”
(Para 19)

The Court further held that the doctrine of merger applies only when the Supreme Court decides the case on merits, which had not occurred in this case. Hence, the review jurisdiction of the High Court remained intact.

"Article 300-A Mandates Just Compensation, Delay Cannot Nullify Constitutional Right"

Justice Gupta also acknowledged the constitutional right to property and just compensation under Article 300-A, citing Delhi Air Tech Services v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408, and Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 550. He remarked that deprivation of private property without fair compensation is unconstitutional, and delay alone cannot deprive a landowner of rightful compensation.

Enhanced Compensation Granted, But Interest Barred for Delay Period

The High Court allowed the review petitions with the following directions:

1. Enhanced compensation of ₹20,00,000/- per acre granted to all applicants, in line with Rajender Singh judgment.

2. Statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 allowed.

3. Interest on enhanced compensation denied for the period of delay (4557 to 4586 days), in line with equity-based principles recognised in Huchanagouda v. A.C. & LAO, (2020) 19 SCC 234.

4. All pending connected review and civil miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly.

Date of Decision: December 2, 2025