IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.1920-CI of 2010 in/and RFA No.959 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:15.09.2011 Omwati ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.3. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) A written request has been made to adjourn the case on the ground that counsel for the appellant is unable to attend the case as he is in personal difficulty and would be out of station on the date fixed. On 07.09.2011, the case was adjourned on the request made on behalf of counsel for the appellant on the ground that he was in personal difficulty. Moreover, there is no one to press this prayer for adjournment. Thus, there is no justification for granting the adjournment and the prayer is declined. This is land-owner's appeal challenging the determination of the market value of the acquired land vide impugned award of the Reference Court, on the ground of inadequacy of compensation. RFA No.959 of 2010 (O&M) -2- This appeal has been filed after a delay of 175 days after the expiry of limitation period. The only ground raised in support of the application for condonation of delay reads thus:- “That the appellant was not aware of the limitation to challenge the award before the appellate court. He came to know about the limitation only when he approached her counsel in the district court on 24.08.2009. Then the counsel told him that you are already late. The appellant has then approached the present counsel to file the appeal on his behalf. Now the appeal is being filed today in the court. In this process a delay of 175 days occurred which is inadvertent and unintentional.” It is well settled that ignorance of law is no excuse to condone the delay. No other explanation is forthcoming. Thus, the prayer for condoning the aforesaid delay is rejected. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, this appeal is also dismissed being time barred. September 15, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE