Judgment :- Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.07.2000 made in W.P.No.13967 of 1991. P. Sathasivam, J. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.07.2000 made in W.P.No.13969 of 1991, in and by which, the learned single Judge, after finding that there is no merit in the writ petition, dismissed the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the very same contentions raised before the learned single Judge. The first contention relates to passing of the award, which according to the counsel is beyond the prescribed time. The learned single Judge, after taking note of 4(1) notification, 5-A enquiry, 6 declaration of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as well as the pendency of the earlier writ petition and ultimate dismissal by this Court even after exclusion of the entire period, has concluded that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been passed within three years and he satisfies the first proviso appended therein. In view of the fact that there is no dispute about the factual details, we agree with the said conclusion. 4. Coming to the second contention, it is not in dispute that the appellant has participated in the 5-A enquiry. The Land Acquisition Officer, after finding that a small bit of land of the petitioner would be required for future expansion of the beneficiaries, rejected the claim of the landowner and recommended for proceeding further. On going through 5-A proceedings, which is available at pages 8 to 13 of the typed set of papers filed by the counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be faulted with. 5. On the other hand, as rightly concluded by the Land Acquisition Officer which is also accepted by the learned single Judge, the land may be required for the future expansion of the beneficiaries. Accordingly, the said contention is also rejected. 6. In addition to the same, it is not in dispute that the appellant herein is a subsequent purchaser, who purchased the land on 22.09.1982, whereas the acquisition proceedings were initiated as early as on 17.12.1977. Accordingly, the said contention is also rejected. 6. In addition to the same, it is not in dispute that the appellant herein is a subsequent purchaser, who purchased the land on 22.09.1982, whereas the acquisition proceedings were initiated as early as on 17.12.1977. In such circumstances, there is no need to show any indulgence as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. In these circumstances, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WAMP No.3629 of 2002 is also dismissed.