Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— All these appeals are directed against common judgment award and decree dated 14.5.1992 passed by IX A.D.J. Ghaziabad in 14 L.A. Reference i.e. L.A. Reference nos. 3 to 16 all of 1999. Through the impugned judgment compensation for the acquired land as offered by Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) has been enhanced to Rs.30000/- per bigha. All these cases are belated by about 200 days (ranging from 197 days to 217 days depending upon the date on which certified copy of the impugned judgement was applied for and obtained). Identical grounds for condonation of delay have been taken in each which are to the following effect. 2. Copy of the impugned judgment along with opinion of D.G.C. was sent to the acquiring body on 18.7.1992 who gave its consent for filing appeal exactly after two months i.e. on 16.9.1992, thereafter D.M. Ghaziabad took two months more in sending letter to the Joint Secretary U.P.; Government letter was sent on 17.11.1992 (para 6) Revenue department through letter dated 14.1.1993 raised certain objections and S.L.A.O. received the said letter on 2.2.1993 reply was sent on 4.2.1993 (para 7). Copies of the letter dated 14.1.1993 and reply of 4.2.1993 have not been annexed. 3. Government granted permission to file appeal on 19.3.1993 thereafter on 29.3.1993 letter was sent to the Acquiring body for arranging the amount of Court fees and necessary expenses which was made available on 17.4.1993 to Collector Ghaziabad. Thereafter, Amin and Naib Tehsildar were sent to Allahabad High court for filing appeal. They reached the office of Chief Standing Counsel on 21.4.1993 and were told that the strike of Class IV employees of the High Court had started which was indefinite accordingly they returned (para 10). Thereafter, in para 11 it is stated that the deponent of the affidavit Smt. Neelam Alawat A.D.M., L.A., Ghaziabad came to Allahabad on 28.4.1993 and knew that strike was over. Thereafter she instructed the Amin and Naib Tehsildar who thereafter came to Allahabad on 3.5.1993. Appeal was filed on 19.5.1993. If strike of High Court employees was going on appeal could very well be got prepared. Moreover even during strike of employees of High Court appeals were filed before the Registrar. 4. Moreover, the delay of two months at two or three occasions as mentioned above has not at all been explained. Appeal was filed on 19.5.1993. If strike of High Court employees was going on appeal could very well be got prepared. Moreover even during strike of employees of High Court appeals were filed before the Registrar. 4. Moreover, the delay of two months at two or three occasions as mentioned above has not at all been explained. It has not been mentioned that what objections were raised by the Government and in any case why incomplete instructions were sent to the Government by the D.M./S.L.A.O. for seeking permission to file appeal. 5. In office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media J.T. 2012(2) S.C.483 Supreme Court refused to condone the inordinate delay (of 427 days) in filing S.L.P. paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment are quoted below:- "12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." 6. Moreover, the enhanced amount as awarded by the impugned judgment must have been realised by the claimants respondents long before. Supreme Court in Stanes Higher Secondary School Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A). A.I.R. 2010 SC 1323 has held that if the amount as awarded by the reference court has been withdrawn by the landowner then even if High Court reduces the said amount, it would be quite unjust to direct return of the said amount (para 12). 7. In State of Punjab Vs. Harchal Singh AIR 2006 SC 2122 the Court has taken into consideration the "Laws Delay" which may not be attributable to anyone in the land acquisition matters. In the instant case also the matter has become almost 20 years old since the date on which amount was enhanced by the reference court. 8. Accordingly, delay condonation application in each appeal is rejected. _____________