ORDER : R. Subbiah, J. 1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed seeking to condone the delay of 667 & 690 days respectively, in filing the writ appeals against the orders dated 18.01.2016 in W.P.No.5263 of 2014 & W.P.No.2518 of 2013, dated 18.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2-1. In the affidavits filed in support of the delay condonation petitions, it has been stated by the petitioners that they were doing cultivation in their ancestral agricultural property situated in S.No.583 on the eastern side of the Kelavarapalli Reservoir, Moranapalli Village, Hosur, Krishnagiri since the year 1923. The said ancestral property was acquired for Industrial purposes, when the property was in the name of the petitioner's father, for the purpose of formation of Second Industrial Complex by the SIPCOT by issuing impugned notification in G.O.Ms.No.1339, Industries, dated 20.09.1982 under Sections 4(1), 17(1), 17(4), 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act and simultaneously in one gazette notification dispensing with the Section 5-A enquiry. The said Government Order specifically stated that the land is acquired for the SIPCOT, but thereafter the land was transferred in favour of the 6th respondent-M/s.Ashok Leyland Pvt. Ltd. The said acquired land was part and parcel of Kelavarapalli Reservoir Project Ayacut Scheme. At the time of acquisition of the land in the year 1982, the petitioners' father was doing cultivation and the crops were standing in the land. The petitioners and their father were cultivating the land for about nine decades continuously without any interruption and the said land is the only livelihood and source of income of the petitioners and it is a fertile land yielding twice the year. It is further stated by the petitioners that on 26.09.1984 and 16.03.1985 award of compensation and interest on award respectively were awarded and the petitioners were not communicated about the award. So far the award amount has not been withdrawn by the petitioners and the same is lying in the revenue account in sub-treasury. The award and revenue deposit of compensation in Sub-Treasury Hosur was known to the petitioners only through RTI replies given by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar. 2-2. So far the award amount has not been withdrawn by the petitioners and the same is lying in the revenue account in sub-treasury. The award and revenue deposit of compensation in Sub-Treasury Hosur was known to the petitioners only through RTI replies given by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar. 2-2. It is further stated by the petitioners that aggrieved over the acquisition, the petitioners have filed the writ petition in W.P.No.2518 of 2013 seeking to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Letter NO.8511/MIG.2/2012-2, dated 27.08.2012 and to direct the respondents to re-convey the land to the petitioners. Similarly, the petitioners have also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.5263 of 2014 seeking to quash the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1339, Industries, dated 20.09.1982 published on 06.10.1982 and to direct the respondents to handover the possession of the petitioners' land to an extent of 4.46 acres in S.No.583 in 105, Mornapalli Village in Hosur Taluk, Krishnagir District. 2-3. The above said writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single judge by order dated 18.01.2016 observing that after a lapse of around thirty years, the writ petitions are not maintainable since the original cause of action arose during the year 1980. Challenging the dismissal of the writ petitions, the present appeals are filed. Since there is a delay in filing the appeals, the petitioners have filed the above Miscellaneous Petitions seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeals. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there was no real and genuine urgency for acquiring the petitioners' agricultural land and it was acquired solely for the purpose of setting up of industrial Unit by the 6th respondent-Private company, in the garb of public purpose. The 1st respondent-Government acquired the land as if there was an urgency under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the year 1982. The petitioners' acquired land invoking urgency provisions was not utilized for about 10 years since its acquisition. The 1st respondent-Government acquired the land as if there was an urgency under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the year 1982. The petitioners' acquired land invoking urgency provisions was not utilized for about 10 years since its acquisition. The lands acquired under urgency provisions including petitioners' land for SIPCOT were transferred to the 6th respondent - M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. only on 30.07.1992 by way of lease deed by the 2nd respondent-SIPCOT and thereafter only the 6th respondent-company started to commence its work over the part of the acquired lands in the year 1995-96, but till date petitioners' land has not at all been utilized, because the petitioners' land was separated by a Kelavarapalli Reservoir Canal from the rest of the lands acquired. It is stated that the petitioners were cultivating the land till the year 2010. But, the 6th respondent-company started preventing the petitioners from entering and cultivating the acquired land by fencing the approach side of the petitioners with mala fide intention. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that though permission was obtained from the 1st respondent-State Government to acquire the land for the purpose of Second Industrial Complex at Mornapalli Village in the year 1980 itself, the subject matter of impugned land acquisition notification in G.O.Ms.No.1339 (Industries) dated 29.09.1982 was issued invoking urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act only on 06.10.1982. The above acquisition also suffers from two years pre-notification delay while invoking urgency provisions. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the year 1984, the petitioners' father filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12273 of 1984 for forbearing the respondents from acquiring the land of the petitioners in S.No.583 measuring to an extent of 4.46 acres and the said writ petition was disposed of on 27.06.1994 by this Court with the following observations:- "that in case respondents have no use of this land for any public purpose they are obliged to consider the question whether the acquisition itself should be withdrawn. The petitioner can for the said purpose make a representation with appropriate authority. The petitioner can for the said purpose make a representation with appropriate authority. In case any such representation is made, the appropriate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law." Thereafter, the petitioners' father had sent several representations to the respondents claiming re-conveyance of the petitioners' acquired agricultural land, but none of the representation of the petitioners' father was considered by the respondents. Finally, considering one of such representations, the 5th respondent had conducted a field inspection on 28.02.1998, to know and ascertain the status of the acquired land leased to the 6th respondent. Pursuant to the said inspection, the 5th respondent had sent a letter to SIPCOT seeking its explanation as to why the petitioner's acquired land was still not being utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired and sought its opinion on the representation dated 12.09.1997 for re-conveyance. But, the SIPCOT did not come forward to respond to the query of DRO, Dharmapuri. Thereafter, the petitioners' father approached this Court by way of filing another writ petition in W.P.No.34702 of 2005 to dispose of the representation dated 12.07.2005. In the above writ petition, on 28.10.2005, this Court has given direction directing the 3rd respondent herein to dispose of the representation for re-conveyance of unutilized acquired land. On 20.01.2006, the 3rd respondent passed and order rejecting the claim for re-conveyance of the acquired land which is without jurisdiction. 6. On 16.04.2006, the petitioners' father died after fighting for several years for re-conveyance of acquired land, which has been kept idle though it was acquired under urgency provisions unsuccessfully. After the demise of their father, the petitioners herein are pursuing the cause. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the land acquired under urgency provisions was not put to use for which it was acquired, the State Government has the power to forfeit the acquired land from the SIPCOT or from M/s.Ashok Leyland Pvt. Ltd., by way of penalty under Section 16-B of Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 1997 and in turn the said lands can be re-conveyed to the erstwhile owners under Section 48-B of the Act, since they were acquired invoking urgency provisions without any urgency. Further, in view of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that if the land owners are deprived of their livelihood ie., their agricultural land acquired on false representation, fraud and if possession is not taken in accordance with law, the writ petitions challenging acquisition can be entertained by the High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution of India, even if there is delay and laches. But, the learned Single Judge of this Court without considering the above aspects, has dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, the petitioners have come forward with the writ appeals. Since there is a delay in filing the appeals, the petitioners have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Petitions seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeals. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the delay could be condoned since the land was acquired not in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 (Pune Municipal Corporation and anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and ors). 7. But, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/SIPCOT, by filing detailed counter, would contend that the petitioners' land was acquired in the year 1982 and an award was passed on 26.09.1984. The total extent of land measuring 4.46 acres in S.No.583 was handed over to the 6th respondent for setting up an Automobile Industry and possession of the land was transferred on 02.07.1992. It is surprise to note that the petitioners have come at a belated stage challenging the acquisition proceedings after the entire extent of land has been put to use by the 6th respondent. The SIPCOT has executed a lease for 99 years with the 6th respondent for running manufacturing of Medium Heavy Duty Vehicles like Commercial vehicles. The factory consists of about 4200 employees who handled the manufacturing of more than 50,000 vehicles. As per the pollution control norms certain areas of lands have been earmarked to be kept vacant during manufacturing process and for parking, testing and runway for the vehicles. The 6th respondent has to maintain train area as vacant space for the above purpose. These are all technical details of the 6th respondent and the petitioner cannot presume that the lands which is kept vacant has not been utilized. The 6th respondent has to maintain train area as vacant space for the above purpose. These are all technical details of the 6th respondent and the petitioner cannot presume that the lands which is kept vacant has not been utilized. The land acquisition proceedings was initiated in the year 1980 with the concurrence of the Government and it was completed on 26.09.1984. As the Land Acquisition proceedings was initiated under urgency provisions, it was handed over on 20.11.1982 after the publication of the draft declaration under Sections 6 & 7 of the Land Acquisition Act. At this stage, after a lapse of 31 years, the petitioners are challenging the land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner's father had not turned up for award enquiry to put forth his claim. Hence, the appellants had lost all his opportunity for claiming any alternation. The land was fully utilized by the applying body. Hence, the land is under full utility of the purpose for which it has been allotted to the 6th respondent by SIPCOT. Further more, in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, the petitioners have not assigned any valid reason for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Thus, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the petitions as well as the appeals. 8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 3 to 5, has also opposed the above petitions, by filing detailed counter and submitted that the lands were acquired as per the urgent provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The subject land was required urgently for allotment to industrial unit. After passing of award in Award No.17/84, dated 26.09.1984 by the Land Acquisition Officer, the possession of the land was taken over by the Special Tahsildar (LA) and thereafter, the land was handed over to the applying body SIPCOT. The Managing Director SIPCOT in turn allotted the subject lands to the 6th respondent for its industrial unit. The 6th respondent has erected structures in the subject land and fully utilized the subject land. All the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and their father have already been dismissed by this Court. The delay in preferring the appeals is inordinate and there is no valid reason given by the petitioners to condone the delay. Thus, the learned Government Advocate sought for dismissal of the delay condonation petitions as well as the appeals. 9. All the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and their father have already been dismissed by this Court. The delay in preferring the appeals is inordinate and there is no valid reason given by the petitioners to condone the delay. Thus, the learned Government Advocate sought for dismissal of the delay condonation petitions as well as the appeals. 9. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made a detailed submission only on the merits of the case in order to justify filing the appeals. But, absolutely he has not given any valid reason to condone the inordinate delay of 667 & 690 days respectively, in filing the appeals. The learned single judge has passed the orders on 18.01.2016, but the petitioners have chosen to file the appeals only after a period of nearly 1 1/2 years. Without giving any explanation for the inordinate day, the petitioners have filed the delay condonation petition, contending as if they are having good case in the appeals. In the absence of any valid reasons to condone the delay, this Court is not inclined to consider the merits of the case. Therefore, We are not inclined to entertain these petitions. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition for condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeals are rejected.