JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in w. P. No. 21097to21107/83dated February 10, 1984. The Bangalore Development Authority (B. D. A) had formulated a development scheme covering an area of 1703 acres of land for the purpose of forming lay-out and house sites. The preliminary notification for acquiring the land was issued on September 19,1977 and the final notification was issued on February 7 1978. The petitioners, who are owners of about 10 acres of land included in that vast ocean of land, have approached this court challenging the validity of the acquisition solely on the ground that there has been no compliance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The learned single judge before whom the writ petitions came for preliminary hearing rejected the petitions on the ground of delay and also on the ground that even if the B. D. A. has not substantially implemented the scheme as provided under section 27 of the Act, this court should be allowed to interfere with a gigantic project undertaken by the Government and the b. D. A. , in the larger public interest. ( 2 ) THE view taken by the learned single Judge has been challenged in these appeals. Mr. Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the question of delay does not arise in a matter which falls under Section 27 of the Act and the Scheme which has not been executed substantially shall lapse without any further order and the B. D. A. therefore, has no power to proceed further under land acquisition Act. ( 3 ) ASIDE the question of delay, we do not think we could examine the contention urged with reference to Section 27 of the Act. Section 27 reads:"27. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE scheme WITHIN FIVE YEARS. Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under Sub-section (1) of Section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of section 36 shall become inoperative". Section 27 reads:"27. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE scheme WITHIN FIVE YEARS. Where within a period of five years from the date of the publication in the official Gazette of the declaration under Sub-section (1) of Section 19, the authority fails to execute the scheme substantially, the scheme shall lapse and the provisions of section 36 shall become inoperative". For the scheme to lapse there must be proof regarding the failure on the part of the authority to execute the scheme substantially within five years from the date of publication in the official gazette of the declaration under Section 19 (1) of the Act. It seems to us that in the first place the "failure to execute the scheme" envisaged under section 27 means that there must be dereliction of statutory duties without justification and not a mere delay in the execution of the scheme. Secondly, the "substantial execution" in the context depends upon the magnitude of the scheme and the nature of the work executed and remains to be executed. ( 4 ) IN the very nature of the project in question, it is almost impossible for this court to be, bark upon an enquiry on the contention raised by the learned counsel. The court as observed by the learned single Judge would be Slow to interefere with the public projects, massive or minor, unless there is compelling reason we do not find any such compelling reason in this case. Writ Appeals are accordingly rejected. --- *** --- .