ORDER : IA No. 1 of 2016 1. After hearing Mr. Vijay A.M. learned advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr. V. Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and considering the averments contained in the affidavit annexed to the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memoranda of writ appeals in time. Therefore, the delay in filing the writ appeals is condoned. 2. The application for condonation of delay stands allowed. 3. There will be no order as to costs. 4. By consent of Mr. Vijay A.M. learned advocate appearing for the appellants, the writ appeals are taken up for preliminary hearing. 5. The appeals will be heard. 6. Issue notice. 7. Mr. V. Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate, accepts notice for the respondent No. 1. 8. Mr. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior advocate, accepts notice for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 through his junior Mr. Lohitaswa Banakar, learned advocate. 9. Therefore, formal service of notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 10. These are appeals against the judgment and order dated March 31, 2016, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in these writ petitions holding that as the physical possession of the land remained with the writ petitioners, the acquisition stood lapsed. 11. Insofar as the land of the writ petitioners, the property was sought to be acquired for formation of the Jayaprakash Narayan Nagar 8th Stage Layout and the final notification was published on October 19, 1994. 12. The Hon’ble Single Judge found that the possession was with the writ petitioners and the documents produced by the Bengaluru Development Authority in support of their claim that the possession was taken, could not be accepted inasmuch as there was no date in the said document, blanks were filled in by the Revenue Inspector and there was no indication that the writ petitioners were notified. 13. Having regard to such finding of fact, we are of the opinion that the Bengaluru Development Authority failed to establish that the possession of the property was taken by them. We do not, therefore, find any error in the order declaring that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed insofar as it relates to the land of the writ petitioners. 14. 13. Having regard to such finding of fact, we are of the opinion that the Bengaluru Development Authority failed to establish that the possession of the property was taken by them. We do not, therefore, find any error in the order declaring that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed insofar as it relates to the land of the writ petitioners. 14. The writ appeals stand dismissed. 15. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. We make no order as to costs.