1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2099 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision :18.08.2011 Chuhar Singh ....Appellant Versus The Collector, Land Acquisition Industries Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local news papers 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: Mr. N.S.Rapri, Advocate for the appellant. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) C.M.No.5071-CI of 2011 By way of instant appeal, the landowner/claimant has challenged the impugned order of the Reference Court on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate. This appeal has been filed after a delay of 2822 days on expiry of limitation period. A prayer has been made in this application for condoning the aforesaid delay. The averments made in support of this application reads thus:- “That the application for supply of the copy of Award was filed on 15.1.2003 which was prepared/completed on 18.2.2003. It was delivered on 23.02.2003. The connected RFA 2 RFA No. 2099 of 2011(O&M) No.2155 of 2003 is pending before this Hon'ble High Court which is of the same notification. The appellant was under impression that this RFA is to be filed after admission of earlier RFA. The RFA No.2564/06 is also pending before this Hon'ble High Court on the same notification. The applicant remained ignorant about the legal position which resulted in the delay of RFA. This delay has occurred because the applicants/appellant is illiterate and is not aware about the limitation of the case. A perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that the condonation of delay has been sought on the ground of ignorance of law. It is well settled that ignorance of law is no excuse. It is also well settled that pendency of connected appeal is no ground to condone the delay for which otherwise no explanation is forthcoming. Thus the explanations submitted by the appellant is not sufficient to condone the delay. In this view of the matter, I find no sufficient reason to condone such a huge delay. Prayer is declined. Resultantly, this application for condoning the delay is dismissed. RFA No. 2099 of 2011 Since the application for condonation of delay has been rejected. The appeal is also ordered to be dismissed being time barred. 18.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge