JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 1244 days in filing a petition to restore M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013, which was filed to condone the delay of 2751 days in filing S.A.(MD) No.S.R.54419 of 2010. 2. The land belongs to the respondents situate in Survey Nos.143/1A2, 143/1B and 143/2, Killiyur Village, admeasuring 3.70.0 hectares, have been acquired for the purpose of providing free house sites for Adi Dravidar people. The petitioner/appellant passed the award in Award No.5 of 2000-2001, dated 23.09.2000. Being dissatisfied with the same, the respondents/claimants filed L.A.C.M.A.No.9 of 2001 before the Court below seeking enhancement of compensation. The Court below has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,500/- per cent with 9% interest, by Judgment and decree, dated 07.03.2003. Against which, the petitioner/appellant filed S.A(MD) No.S.R.54419 of 2010, with a delay of 2751 days and in order to condone the same, M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013 has been filed. This Court vide order dated 23.01.2014, allowed the petition on condition to deposit 50% of the amount of compensation to the credit of L.A.C.M.A.No.9 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Paramakudi, within a period of eight weeks. The said conditional order has not been complied with by the petitioner/appellant. Hence, M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013 was dismissed on 27.03.2014. Since there is a delay of 1244 days in filing a petition to restore M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013, the present petition has been filed. 3. On the side of the respondents a counter has been filed and the counter is extracted below : “... ... ... 3. I further submit that without compliance of the above said conditional order, the petitioner herein managed to number the main second appeal. Immediately we placed the material facts before this Hon'ble Court regarding non compliance of the condition as mandate in the above said order and after considering all the circumstances, this Hon'ble Court, by its order, dated 27.03.2014, passed the following order: “2. This Court on an earlier occasion directed the appellant/Government to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.42,46,901/ which was a condition precedent for condoning the delay, within eight weeks to the credit of LACMA.No.9 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Paramakudi and the said order was passed on 23.01.2014. 3. This Court on an earlier occasion directed the appellant/Government to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.42,46,901/ which was a condition precedent for condoning the delay, within eight weeks to the credit of LACMA.No.9 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Paramakudi and the said order was passed on 23.01.2014. 3. On verification from the Registry it is learnt that the conditional order was not complied with and without taking note of the above facts, Registry had numbered the Second Appeal. Therefore, this Court on 26.02.2014 directed the Registry to de-number the appeal. Even thereafter, the conditional order passed by this Court on 23.01.2014 had not been complied with till date and the petitioner/appellant has also not taken any steps to file an application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time to deposit the compensation amount as ordered earlier, Hence, this application to condone the delay is dismissed for non-compliance. 4. I further submit that, after this order nearly after two years by Government order in G.O.No.139 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 19.07.2016 the 50% of the award amount has been credited to L.A.C.M.A.No.9 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Paramakudi of Rs.24,83,503/- and we the claimant withdrawn 50% of above said deposited amount. It is to be noted that belated deposit by the petitioner is clear violation of the above said order dated 23.01.2014 in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013 in S.A.(MD) No.S.R.54419 of 2010 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the dismissal order, dated 27.03.2014 in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013 in S.A.(MD) No.S.R.54419 of 2010 on the file of this Hon'ble Court is perfectly valid order till today. The present applications are to condone the delay in filing restoration application and another petition to restore M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013, which are all not maintainable in law”. 4. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner/appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner/appellant would submit that since the award amount is huge, the delay has been occurred and the conditional order has been complied with and Rs.24,83,503/- has been deposited before the Court below. Thus, he prayed to condone the delay. 6. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner/appellant would submit that since the award amount is huge, the delay has been occurred and the conditional order has been complied with and Rs.24,83,503/- has been deposited before the Court below. Thus, he prayed to condone the delay. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the conditional order dated 23.01.2014 has been complied with nearly after 2 1/2 years. Since no application has been filed for extension of time to deposit the amount, this Court dismissed M.P.(MD) No2 5 of 2013. In filing the petition to restore the same also, there was 1244 days delay. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. On a perusal of records, this Court finds that on earlier occasion, this Court, vide order dated 23.01.2014, directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation as a condition precedent for condoning the delay. The said order was not complied with. On verification from the Registry, it was learnt that without taking note of the same, the second appeal has been numbered. Therefore, this Court, on 26.02.2014, directed the Registry to de-number the appeal. Even thereafter, till 27.03.2014, the petitioner has not complied with the conditional order. Hence, the petition was dismissed. To restore the said petition also, there was a delay of 1244 days. 8. The length of delay is not a minimal one. It is 1244 days. It is a settled principle that reason for each day delay has to be given. But, for such an inordinate delay, the reasonings assigned by the petitioner/appellant are not satisfactory and therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay. 9. In such a view the matter, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the second appeal, which is in SR stage, is rejected.