Judgment :- V.G. Sabhahit, J. This appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the order dated 9-2-1998 in W.P.No.682 of 1989 and W.P.Nos.12574 and 12575 of 1988, wherein the learned Single Judge has set aside the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act') insofar as it relates to the writ petitioners reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of hearing the petitioners on their objections as required under Section 5-A of the Act and the order dated 27-6-2005 dismissing Review Petition No.379 of 2005 on the ground of delay and laches. 2. Respondents herein filed W.P.No.682 of 1989 and W.P.Nos.12574 and 12575 of 1988 seeking for quashing of the notification dated 27-2-1987 as per Annexure-A to writ petitions and notification dated 27-4-1988 as per Annexure-B to writ petitions. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are the owners of Sy.No.80/1 in Subhash Moidan, which was purchased in the year 1987 and the said land with structures measures 26 guntas, is situated in the heart of city of Sakaleshpur and is a very valuable property. The said land is commercial and industrial land as per the Town Planning Authority. The petitioners were planning to put up a brick factory, furniture works, godown to store building materials like cement, steel, timber etc., and office accommodation. However, by notification dated 21-2-1987 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 25-6-1987, this land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of Jathra in Shandy Maidan. The petitioners filed their objection statement within the stipulated time. However, final notification dated 27-4-1988 was published in Karnataka Gazette dated 21-7-1988 without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their contentions. Therefore, the writ petitions were filed for quashing of the above preliminary and final notifications. 3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, held that no ground has been made out for quashing the preliminary notification. However, so far as the final notification impugned in the writ petitions is concerned, the objections filed by the petitioners have not been considered in accordance with law. Therefore. 3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, held that no ground has been made out for quashing the preliminary notification. However, so far as the final notification impugned in the writ petitions is concerned, the objections filed by the petitioners have not been considered in accordance with law. Therefore. the learned Single Judge has quashed the final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act and remitted the matter to respondents with a liberty to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of hearing the petitioners on their objections as required under Section 5-A of the Act. The appellants herein filed Review Petition No.379 of 2005 seeking review of the said order. Since there was a delay of 2590 days in filing the review petition, the learned Single Judge by order dated 27-6-2005 dismissed the review petition on the ground of delay and laches. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in the writ petitions and review petition, the respondents in the writ petition have preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. Learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petitions and dismissing the review-petition and wherefore the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned; the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside by allowing the appeal. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions and review petition are justified. The inordinate delay in filing the review petition is not properly explained and no cause has been shown for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and wherefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and also on merit. 7. We have given careful consideration to the contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. There is a delay of 3047 days in filing this appeal. The appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 9-2-1998 passed in W.P.No.682 of 1989 and W.P.Nos.12574 and 12575 of 1988. 8. 7. We have given careful consideration to the contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. There is a delay of 3047 days in filing this appeal. The appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 9-2-1998 passed in W.P.No.682 of 1989 and W.P.Nos.12574 and 12575 of 1988. 8. The affidavit is filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sakleshpur Sub-Division, Sakleshpur, in support of the application. It is averred in the affidavit that the delay has occurred in filing the appeal due to administrative reasons. It is clear that the said averment does not make out any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 3047 days in filing the appeal and accordingly, we hold that no cause has been made out for condoning the delay. 9. Even on merits, we find that there is no merit in the appeal. The learned Single Judge has confirmed the preliminary notification and has quashed the final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act on the ground that the objection filed by the writ petitioners is not considered while issuing the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act and therefore remitted the matter to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of hearing the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. The review petition filed by the appellants herein for reviewing the order dated 9-2-1988 has been dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay of 2590 days in filing the review petition. Accordingly, we hold that the orders of the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions and review petition are justified and do not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this intra-Court appeal. Accordingly, we pass the following. Order The writ appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and also on merit.