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