Judgment :- N.K. PATIL J., 1. The appellant-petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 12/04/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14954/1999, has presented this appeal. 2. Along with the appeal, learned counsel for appellant has filed I.A.No.I/2011 for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.. 4. The delay of 68 days in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant in the affidavit filed along with the application, stating that, the certified copy of the impugned order was made available on 21.5.2011, she could not instruct her counsel at Bangalore to file an appeal inasmuch her grand child at Canada was ill and she was constrained to go to Canada on 23.6.2011 and returned to Delhi on 10.7.2011 and again, she went to Canada on 4.8.2011 and returned on 15.8.2011 and during these process there is a delay of 68 days in filing the appeal and thereafter ,the appeal was filed on 30.8.2011. The said delay is bonafide and the same is neither intentional or deliberate. Further, she submitted that she has excellent case on merits and great hardship and prejudice will be caused to her if the said delay is not condoned and on the other hand, no hardship of any nature would be caused to the other side if the said delay is condoned. Therefore, she submitted that the delay may be condoned and matter may be heard on merits, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. After careful perusal of the statements made in the para-3 of the affidavit dated 28.10.2011 accompanying the application, it could be seen that, the certified copy was made available to the appellant on 21.5.2011 and thereafter, she has got time till 22.6.2011. It is the case of the appellant that, she went to Canada on 23.6.2011 and returned to Delhi on 10.7.2011, again she went to Canada on 4.8.2011 and returned on 15.8.2011. She was available from 10.7.2011 till 03.08.2011. The appeal was filed 30.8.2011. The delay from 22.5.2011 to 22.6.2011, from 11.7.2011 to 3.8.2011 and from 15.8.2011 to 30.10.2011 has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The appellant is bound to explain each day’s delay filing the appeal by assigning valid and cogent reasons. She was available from 10.7.2011 till 03.08.2011. The appeal was filed 30.8.2011. The delay from 22.5.2011 to 22.6.2011, from 11.7.2011 to 3.8.2011 and from 15.8.2011 to 30.10.2011 has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The appellant is bound to explain each day’s delay filing the appeal by assigning valid and cogent reasons. But the explanation offered by the appellant for condoning the said delay in omnibus in nature and much credibility cannot be given to the same. Therefore, in view of non explaining the said delay satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons, the statements made by the appellant in para-3 of the affidavit cannot be accepted. Hence, we are of the opinion that, I.A.No.I/2011 filed by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. 6. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we have gone through the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge on 12th April 2011 in W.P.No. 14959/1999, wherin, the appellant has assailed the correctness of the final notification dated 19.8.1964 vide Annexure-P and further proceedings in the award dated 25.9.68 vide Annexure-T and etc. 7. It is the case of the appellant petitioner which is a Private Limited Company before the Learned Single Judge is that, it is the owner of two sites each measuring 42 x 50 feet in premises Nos. 706 and 707 carved out of Sy. Nos. 93 and 169/1 of Kodihalli village. The said sites were bearing katha Nos. 314 and 315 in the records of erstwhile Hindustan Aeronautics Sanitary Board. Further, it is stated that site in Sy. No. 93 is situated behind the site in Sy.No. 169/1 and that the only access to the site in Sy.No. 93 is through the Sy.No.169/1. The appellant-petitioner has stated that by registered sale deed dated 20.12.1993 the said sites were purchased from one Erappa alias Doddappanna and subsequently, its name was mutated in the revenue records and it had been paying taxes regularly and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, it is the case of appellant-petitioner that, its vendors had earlier purchased the aforesaid sites by the registered sale deed dated 1.2.1962 and thereafter sold the same. Further, it is the case of appellant-petitioner that, its vendors had earlier purchased the aforesaid sites by the registered sale deed dated 1.2.1962 and thereafter sold the same. In the endorsement dated 12.8.1991 issued by Bangalore Development Authority, it was stated that the sites did not form part of any scheme as on that date and on the strength of the said endorsement., appellant-petitioner has purchased the same. Thereafter, she came to know that in respect of the said sites also preliminary notification was issued on 28.11.1959 by the City Improvement Trust Board (CIB), the predecessor of the BDA to acquire various extent of lands for the purpose of formation of layout un Old Madras Road and it was followed by final notification dated 19.8.1964 and subsequently, award was passed on 25.9.1968 in respect of the sites in question and the said notification and award are challenged by the appellant. 8. The learned Single Judge, after having heard the counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the material available, has recorded the finding of fact stating that, it is not in dispute that, in respect of sites in question, preliminary notification was issued on 28.11.1959 for acquisition of vast extent of lands for the purpose of formation of old Madras Road and HAL II stage layout and the said notification was followed by a final notification dated 19.8.1964 issued under the CITB act. Therefore, award dated 25.9.1968 has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer including the sites in question and subsequently, possession has been taken on 28.12.1968 and therefore, possession of the said sites stood vested with the State Government and thereafter, it has been handed over to the CITB or to its Successor-Bangalore Development Authority for the purpose of formation of the layout. Further, learned Single Judge Has recorded that ,the appellant-petitioner has purchased the said sites only in the year 1993 i.e. on 20.12.1993 when in fact the vendors had no right, title or interest to sell the said sites in its favour and therefore, appellant – petitioner had not acquired any right, title or interest in the sites in question. Further, learned Single Judge Has recorded that ,the appellant-petitioner has purchased the said sites only in the year 1993 i.e. on 20.12.1993 when in fact the vendors had no right, title or interest to sell the said sites in its favour and therefore, appellant – petitioner had not acquired any right, title or interest in the sites in question. The endorsement dated 1q2.8.1991 issued by the Bangalore Development authority is of no assistance to it, inasmuch as the said endorsement does not contain any reference with regard to the tile of the appellant-petitioner’s vendors to sell the said sites and therefore, in order to protect its possession, the Task Force of the respondent authorities tried to evict the appellant-petitioner from the said sites. In fact, it is noticed that the appellant’s vendors had also purchased the said sites only on 1.2.1962 after the issuance of the preliminary notification and moreover the preliminary notification itself is not in challenge. Further, the learned Single Judge has recorded that, it is apparent from the narration of the said facts that the appellant-petitioner had not acquired any right, title or interest in the said sites in question and therefore, it has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition notification. Further, it has been recorded that, the challenge made to the final notification dated 19.8.1964 which is also impugned has not been accepted by this Court and the writ petition filed in the year 2000 has been dismissed and the petitioner in the said case was granted opportunity to seek compensation for the damage that may have been caused to the property of the said petitioner. The said order has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 5.11.2008. Considering the fact that the very same notification has been unauthorisedly challenged in the aforementioned writ petition and appeal and the orders passed therein are squarely applicable to the present case. Further, the learned Single Judge has recorded that, appellant-petitioner cannot also be granted any other relief and in view of the same, it had not right, title or interest in the sites in question and action which was taken by the respondent authorities was to protect its right to the properties in question in respect of which the appellant-petitioner cannot have any grievance and accordingly, dismissed the said petition. The said reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner is just and property and we do not find any error of law, much less maternal irregularity as such committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the said petition. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the appellant-petitioner has not made out any good grounds to consider the relief sought in this appeal. Taking all these factors into consideration, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits. 9. For yet another reason, the writ appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed is, neither the vendors of the appellant nor the appellant has got any right, title or interest over the sites in question, for the reason that, acquisition proceedings was initiated in the year 1959, the appellant’s vendors have purchased it in the year 1962 and appellant has purchased it in the year 1993. If these aspects are taken into consideration, appellant Has no locus standi to redress its grievance by invoking the Extra Ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after the lapse of more than one decade. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits. 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance of respondent No. 1, within four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly.