ORDER Y. K. Sangal, J.—This writ petition is filed to issue certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.8.1992, passed by respondent No. 2, i.e., Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 13.9.1993, passed by respondent No. 1, i.e., Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur. 2. The sole petitioner, Ram Samujh undisputedly died on 6.1.2001. Application to substitute the heirs on his place was moved on 13.2.2004 with an application to condone the delay in moving the application. The ground shown to condone the delay that three applicants who are the sons of the deceased-Ram Samujh were totally ignorant to the law and procedure and also ignorant about the fact that 90 days are provided for filing the application for substitution. When they came at Lucknow on 12.2.2004, they came to know about this fact and then they disclosed about the death of their father then application was prepared and moved. Objection and counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that when the writ petition was filed, no stay order was granted then an application was moved on 18.11.2002 on behalf of the petitioner for granting the stay order after about two years of petitioner’s death. Sri S. M. Nasir, till that date was counsel in the case. Already death of Ram Samujh has taken place and no vakalatnama on behalf of his heirs was filed. Affidavit alongwith application was submitted by Shiv Narain, one of the son of the petitioner who is also applicant in the substitution application. It is surprising that why this Shiv Narain has not stated about the death of his father to his counsel at that time who appears educated person. It is something unnatural that his counsel while preparing the affidavit has also not inquired in this regard from Shiv Narain. They got interim relief in the matter from the Court on the application moved on behalf of deceased person. 5. It is presumed under the provisions of law that everybody knows the law of the land. There is inordinate, unexplained and unnatural delay in moving the application for substituting the heirs. No sufficient explanation submitted on behalf of the applicants to condone this inordinate delay. It is established law that every day delay should be explained. 5. It is presumed under the provisions of law that everybody knows the law of the land. There is inordinate, unexplained and unnatural delay in moving the application for substituting the heirs. No sufficient explanation submitted on behalf of the applicants to condone this inordinate delay. It is established law that every day delay should be explained. The relevant consideration is that the right which accrues to the other party by expiration of the period of limitation should not be disturbed lightly after expiry of the period of limitation a right accrues to the other side. Court are not to be light heartened to disturb the legal right and condonation of delay is not a matter of right. It is expected from the parties to pursue their rights and remedies promptly and not sleep over their rights. Even if there is a sufficient cause, this discretion lies with the Court to condone the delay or not. 6. I do not find any sufficient ground to allow this application, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. 7. As the sole petitioner had died, hence, writ petition stands abated and it is hereby dismissed.