$-8to15&17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + (1) LA.APP. 620/2011 NAE SINGH & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from • DMRC LA.APP. 621/2011 PREET SINGH & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with I Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from DMRC LA.APP. 622/2011 PYARI Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates. versus LA.APP Nos.620,621,622,623,624,625,626, 627& 631 of2011 Page 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified t t L-" UNION OF INDIA & ORS. . Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDAI Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from DMRC LA.APP. 623/2011 RAJ SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates •Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from DMRC LA.APP. 624/2011 JAI CHAND Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from DMRC LA.APP Nos. 620,621,622,623,624,625,626,627& 631 of2011 Page2; LA.APP. 625/2011 DHAN KAUR Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: I\4r. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from DMRC LA.APP. 626/2011 MAHA SINGH Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from DMRC LA.APP. 627/2011 SATYAPAL & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & LA.APP Nos.620,621,622,623,624,625,626, 627& 631 of2011 Page 3 '4 Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from DMRC (9) LA.APP.631/2011 ANGOORI Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates. Vrc11Q UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from DMRC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 30.11.2011 CM No. 17352/2011 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of 2133 days)& LAA. APP 620/2011 of 2078 uay) .x iiif. J- I1 UIIVI I I CM No. 17406/20 11 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of 2098 days) & LAAAPP 622/2011 CM No. 1408/2011 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of 2092 Gays) & LJ-\J\IU'I' OLiIZUI I) CM No. 17410/2011 (u/S 5 ( itation Act for of 2123 dâvs) & LAA. APP 624/2011 I No. 17412/2011 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of 2098 s) & LAA. APP 625/2011 7(71 LA.APP Nos.2O,621,622,623,624,625,626, 627& 631 of2011 Page 4 CM No. 17447/2011 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of 2098 days) & LAA. APP 626/2011 CM No.17449/2011 (u/S5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of 2120 days)&LAA. APP 627/2011 CM No 1 7657001 1 (ri/S 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay of 2100 days) & LAA. APP 631/2011 Since identical reasons are put-forth in the above captioned nine applications, seeking condonation of inordinate delay in filing accompanying appeals to claim higher compensation for the acquired lands, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these application is were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order. It is often said 'ignorance of law is no excuse'. To explain the inordinate delay of more than five years, the reason put-forth by the applicants is that they could not contact their counsel and were not awaie of their right to seek enhanced compensation in appeal. Why they could' not contact their counsel is not disclosed in these applications. The additional affidavit filed by the applicants in support of their application for condonation of delay, is just an elaboration of the plea of ignorance taken in the applications and on merits to justify parity with the decision of this Court in LA.APP. No. 784/2005 'Jamna Vs. Union of India & Ors.', rendered on 8th July, 2011. However, this does not take the case of the applicants any further, as the tendency of speculative litigation has to be curbed with a heavy hand. Finding the aforesaid explanation to be hardly convincing, and while adopting the reasoning for refusal of condonation of delay of more than five '5- LA.APP Nos.620,621,622,623,624,625,626, 627& 631 of2011 Page 5 /4 years in LA APP No. 617/2011, 'Satbir singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.' dismissed 1 vide separate detailed order today, these applications for condonation of delay are dismissed with costs. Consequently, accompanying appeals are also dismissed as time barred. GAUR JUDGE H NOVEMBER 30, 2011 rs LA.APP 627& 631 of2011 Page 6