In the present case, the respondents in the writ petition had raised a specific plea of delay as a bar to grant relief to the petitioners. In our view, it was perhaps necessary for the Court to have specifically dealt with this issue. It is now well settled that a person who seeks the intervention of the High Court under Article 226, should give a satisfactory explanation of his failure to assert his claim at an earlier date. The excuse for procrastination should find a place in the petition filed before the Court and the facts relied upon by him should be set out clearly in the body of the petition. An excuse that he was agitating his claims before authorities by making repeated representations would not be satisfactory explanation for condoning the inordinate delay in approaching the Court. If a litigant runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute, it cannot be a satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay in approaching the Court.On this issue, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties in great detail, since the immovable property rights of the parties are involved. In our considered view, there is no explanation, much less satisfactory explanation offered by the respondents in approaching the writ court after an inordinate delay of nearly 15 years from the date of the notification issued under the Evacuee Property Act. For the delay from 1952 to 1955, the contesting respondents would only submit that they were not aware of the notification issued under the Evacuee Property Act, since no notice was served on them, though a public notice was issued by the authority under the Evacuee Property Act. While explaining the delay of nearly eleven years from 1955 to 1966, they contend that they were in possession of the property and they were making representations before the authorities under the Evacuee Property Act for redressal of their grievance. The delay after the orders were passed by the Settlement Commissioner in the year 1983 till the writ petition was filed in the year 1990, it is explained that they had moved the State Government suo motu to revise the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and since the State Government returned their request, they had approached the High Court to issue directions to the State Government to issue appropriate directions.In our considered view, there was inordinate delay in approaching the authorities for redressal of their grievance. As rightly contended by Shri Mukund, even when they approached the authorities, they were claiming wrong reliefs or incomplete reliefs. Even when they filed the writ petition in the year 1990, they did not choose to question the correctness of the notification but was questioned by way of filing an amendment application in the year 1998. There is some merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the petitioners had not even offered any satisfactory explanation in approaching the court nearly after three decades from the date of notification issued under the Evacuee Property Act. Submit