A X. $-69-74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP.809/2011(VILLAGEBHALSWAJEHANGIRPUR UNION OF INDIA versus Appellant Through: Mr.SanjayPoddar,SeniorAdvocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, and Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates for UOI/LAC RAM PHAL & ORS Respondents Through: Mr.ArunBirbalandMr.Paramhans, Advocates for DDA in (A-60 Mr.S.K.Sethi, Advocate for DDA (in A-17, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 43, 53, 54, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66 Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA (in A-5 to 13, 18 to 24, 26, 30, 32-42, 44-52, 55-58, 60, 63, 67-74 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 21.12.2011 C.M.No. 23224/2011 (ApDointment of gxiardian) in LA.APP. 811/2011 The applicationis allowedin terms of the prayer made in the application. CM stands disposed of. CM No. 23218/11 in LA.APP. 809/2011 CM No. 23221/11 in LA.APP. 810/2011 CMNo. 23225/11 in LA.APP. 811/2011 CM No. 23228/11 in LA.APP. 812/2011 CMNo. 23231/11 in LA.APP. 813/2011 CM No. 23234/11 in LA.APP. 814/2011 LA.App.No. 809/2011 &connected appeals of VillageBhalswa Jehangirpur 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 k. The reason for the delay put forth for delay in re-filing the appealsis containedin paragraphno.4 ofthese applications.Learned senior counsel for the apphcant/appellantholds himself responsible for the delay occasioned. In view of the averments made in paragraph no. 4 of the instant applications,the same are allowed and the delay in re-filing the accompanying appeals is condoned. C.Ms, stand disposed of. CM No. 23217/11 in LA.APP. 809/2011 A CMNo. 23220/11 inLA.APP.810/2011 CM No. 23223/11 in LA.APP. 811/2011 CM No. 23227/11 in LA.APP. 812/2011 CM No. 23230/11 in LA.APP. 813/2011 CM No. 23233/11 in LA.APP. 814/2011 The reason put forth for the delay occasioned in filing the accompanyingappealis nothingbut bureaucraticlapses.Afterhaving heard learned senior counsel for the applicant/appellant at some length on merits also, I find that cause shown for the delay occasioned is not sufficient and so, I am not inclined to condone the delay in filing of the accompanying appeal in the facts of this case, as even on merits, the appellant does not have an arguable case in view of a recent decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in LA.App. No. 999/2010 titled as "Raj Singh vs. Union of India", decided on 19.09.2011. In view thereof, the aforesaid applications for condonation of delay are dismissed. CMs stand disposed of LA.APP. 809/2011 & CM No. 23216/11 LA.APP. 810/2011 & CM No. 23219/11 LA.APP.811/2011&CM No. 23222/11 LA.App.No. 809/2011 & connected appeals of Village Bhalswa Jehangirpur Page 2 7^ LA.APP. 812/2011 & CM No. 23226/11 LA.APP. 813/2011 & CM No. 23229/11 LA.APP. 814/2011 & CMNo. 23232/11 Since the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, therefore these appeals are dismissed as time barred. Consequentially, applicationsfor stay are disposedof as infructuous. DECEMBER 21, 2011 pkb . a ILGMJR) JUDGE LA.App.No. 809/2011 &connected appeals ofVillageBhalswa Jehangirpur Page 3 3