The court can condone delay in the presentation of an appeal due to laches on the part of the lawyer. The exclusion of lands from acquisition proceedings can be rejected if the acquired lands have been utilized and the purpose for which the land was acquired still subsists.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. M.P. No.2 of 2008 has been filed for condonation of delay of 903 days in the presentation of the appeal. The explanation which has been offered in the petition is that the writ petitioners changed the vakalatnama of the advocate who initially represented them and gave it in favour of another advocate. After doing that, the writ petitioners virtually did not take any step in the matter and about four years after the writ petition was filed, some enquiry was made about this case. Such enquiry being made on 3. 2008, the writ petitioners came to know that the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 9. 2005. This is the explanation given in the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. However, since the explanation has been given referring to some laches on the part of the lawyer, we are condoning the delay and M.P. No.2 of 2008 is ordered as prayed for.

3. Coming to the merits of the appeal, we find that the impugned order which was passed by the learned Judge of the writ court disposing of the writ petition runs as follows :-

"The request made by the writ petitioners to exclude the lands from the acquisition proceedings stands rejected. Perused the impugned order. It shows that the acquired lands, after the award, have been handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as early as on 4. 1986 and the entire extent of land had been utilised as mentioned in the impugned order. To get exclusion of the land under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land must continue to vest with the Government and the purpose for which the land was acquired should not subsist. Since both the material aspects are absent in this case, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, it is sustained and the writ petition stands dismissed."

4. From the materials available on record, it appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired land of the writ petitioners, the appellants herein, measuring an extent of 2.10 acres, for the purpose of construction of houses under the Hosur Neighbourhood Scheme by issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on 19. 1985. Award No.1 of 1985 came to be passed on 12. 1986 and possession of the land was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 4. 1986. Aggrieved by the said acquisition, the appellants earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. No.24008 of 2003, in which the appellants made a prayer for re-transfer of the acquired land. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on 9. 2003 with a direction that the application of the appellants under Section 48-B of the said Act may be considered and orders may be passed on the same within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereupon, the representation of the appellants was disposed of by the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department by order dated 12. 2004. By the said order, the Secretary to Government, while rejecting the representation of the appellants, stated that their application under Section 48-B of the Act has been examined in consultation with the requisitioning body, viz. the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and it was found that the land measuring 2.10 acres in Survey No.315, Hosur Village, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District was acquired under Award No.1/1985 and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has taken over possession of the land on 4. 1986 and thereafter, the said land has been utilised. The details of such utilisation were also mentioned in the said order, which are set out hereunder :-

Theatre site 52E (sold by auction) 3345.00 sq.m.

OHT 52F 720.00 sq.m.

Channel 52D 2824.00 sq.m.

Road 24 metre and 9 metre wide 1608.83 sq.m.

Total 8496.33 sq.m. ------------------ (or) 2.10 acres After giving such details, the Secretary to Government has stated in his order that the entire extent of the