JUDGMENT : There is delay of 585 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the delay has occurred due to bona-fide and unintentional reasons. In that regard he drew our attention to IA No.1/2018 filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. He submitted that the appellant- Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has a good case on merits and therefore, delay may be condoned and the matter may be heard on merits. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents/writ petitioners had filed Writ Petition Nos.37184-200/2016, seeking a writ of mandamus against the appellants herein to execute sale deeds in respect of the petition schedule property which had been allotted in favour of the petitioners as per Annexures-A to A15 vide allotment orders dated 09.02.2016, 11.02.0216 and 15.03.2016. In all, 15 sites, totally measuring around 39,289 square feet were allotted by the appellant/BDA in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners. The said allotment was made in lieu of utilization of respondents’ land to an extent of 36 guntas in Sy.No.84/1 of Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said land belonged to the first respondent herein and was utilized by the appellant/BDA for the purpose of formation of Gnanabharathi Layout. There is no dispute that the said land had been utilized by the appellant/BDA without there being any acquisition thereof. The BDA, in lieu of utilisation of the said land, allotted 15 sites of different dimensions to the respondents, but no execution of the registered Sale Deeds was made in their favour. Therefore, they approached this Court seeking a direction in that regard. 3. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the appellant herein cancelled the allotment made in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners vide, a decision taken at a meeting held on 2.6.2016. As a result, the writ petitioners amended their petitions and challenged cancellation of the allotment of sites. Learned Single Judge, on hearing the respective parties found that, there was no dispute that 36 guntas of land belonging to the petitioners had been utilized by the BDA, without acquiring the same. The said land belongs to the petitioners, but was utilized illegally without resorting to the process of acquisition and no compensation had also been paid for the same. The said land belongs to the petitioners, but was utilized illegally without resorting to the process of acquisition and no compensation had also been paid for the same. In the circumstances, there was an order for allotment of 15 sites in view of the utilization of the land belonging to the writ petitioners/respondents herein. 4. Learned Single Judge also found that BDA had utilized the land in the year 1996 but had not paid any compensation to the petitioners and in such circumstances it had two options, either, execute the sale deed in respect of the sites allotted in their favour or to acquire the said land and pay compensation in accordance with ‘The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’ (for short ‘2013 Act’). Therefore, directions were issued quashing the order of cancellation of the allotment, to execute the sale deeds in favour of the respondents-allottees or, in the alternative, to acquire 36 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.84/1 of Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and pay compensation as per the prevalent market value as on the date of issuance of the preliminary notification under the provisions of ‘2013 Act’ within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Being aggrieved, the BDA has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Sri.Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for respondent No.3 on the merits of the matter also. We have perused the material on record. Respondents No.1 and 2 are served and unrepresented. 6. In the first instance, we have considered the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 585 days and the reasons assigned therein. For immediate reference we extract paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the said application: “3. We have perused the material on record. Respondents No.1 and 2 are served and unrepresented. 6. In the first instance, we have considered the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 585 days and the reasons assigned therein. For immediate reference we extract paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the said application: “3. I submit that, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is on 18.03.2017 and subsequently after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment, discussion was held with the concerned officer and commissioner to prefer the writ appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, and it was sent to the legal section for securing the legal opinion as to whether it is a fit case to prefer the writ appeal challenging the order of the learned single judge and subsequently after taking opinion from the concerned legal officer, the file has been handed over to our panel advocate to prefer the appeal challenging the order of the learned single judge, in this background there is delay in preferring the above appeal due to the administrative reasons. 4. The delay in preferring the appeal is unintentional but for the bona-fide reasons stated above. I state that since sufficient cause has been made out for the delay in preferring the appeal by the appellant, this Hon’ble Court may take liberal approach and condone the delay. We have a good case on merits. If the accompanying application is not allowed and the appeal is not considered on merits, we will be put to irreparable injury, loss and hardship. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the delay is condoned and appeal is heard on merits.” 7. On perusal of the same, we find that there is absolutely no explanation for the long delay of 585 days in filing the appeal. The affidavit is bald and bereft of any reasons as to why the delay of 585 days occurred in filing the appeal. In the circumstances, we dismiss the application and consequently the appeal on the ground of delay and laches. 8. The affidavit is bald and bereft of any reasons as to why the delay of 585 days occurred in filing the appeal. In the circumstances, we dismiss the application and consequently the appeal on the ground of delay and laches. 8. In this context, we rely on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (a) We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Master General & others vs. Living Media India Ltd. & another [ (2012) 3 SCC 563 ] has deprecated the delay in filing the special leave petitions by the State and Central Governments as well as their instrumentalities and agencies. Paragraph Nos.27 to 30 of the said judgment read as under: “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.” 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” (b) Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh & others vs. Bherulal [decided on 15/10/2020 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.9217/2020], reported in [ (2020) 10 SCC 654 ] has deprecated the practice of filing appeals and special leave petitions belatedly. The relevant portion of the said judgment read as under: "5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a goby. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay. xxx 7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible." In the aforesaid case, the delay in filing the special leave petition was 663 days. (c) The same opinion has been expressed even in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & others vs. Uday N.Murudkar [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.9228/2020 disposed of on 15/10/2020] and the State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Prem Chandra [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.971/2020 disposed of on 27/11/2020]. (c) The same opinion has been expressed even in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & others vs. Uday N.Murudkar [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.9228/2020 disposed of on 15/10/2020] and the State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Prem Chandra [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.971/2020 disposed of on 27/11/2020]. (d) Further, on 18.12.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Timblo Irmaos Ltd. & others [SLP (Civil) Diary No.19059/2020] has observed as under: "We have dealt with the issue of Government authorities in approaching Courts belatedly as if the Statute of Limitation does not exist for them. While referring to some reasons given for insufficiencies, we observed that the parties cannot keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr, (supra). This situation no more prevail and this position had been elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 ." Hence, this appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 9. That apart we have also perused in detail the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in light of the prayers sought for by the writ petitioners/respondents and facts of the case. We find that initially the petitioners had sought a direction to execute the sale deeds in respect of the sites allotted to them, in view of utilization of 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.84/1 of Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, but since the said allotment themselves were cancelled during the pendency of the writ petition, the cancellation of the said allotments were also assailed. 10. Learned Single Judge on considering the rival contentions, directed on quashing of cancellation of the allotment vide Annexure-F, the BDA, to execute the sale deeds in respect of the sites allotted vide as Annexures-A to A15 or, in the alternative, to acquire the said extent of land and pay compensation in terms of ‘2013 Act’ within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. 11. The fact that the aforesaid extent of land had been utilized by the BDA for the formation of the Gnanabharathi Layout is not in dispute. 11. The fact that the aforesaid extent of land had been utilized by the BDA for the formation of the Gnanabharathi Layout is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in view of the said utilization of land, 15 sites were allotted to the writ petitioners/respondents and thereafter the same was cancelled during the pendency of the writ petition. In the circumstances, the directions of the learned Single Judge are just and proper on quashing the order of cancellation. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is also dismissed on merits. The appellants as well as respondent No.3 to ensure that, either, the sale deeds in respect of the sites allotted to them are executed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment or, in the alternative, to complete the process of acquisition of the aforesaid extent of land and pay compensation as per the ‘2013 Act’ within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA No.2/2018 stands dismissed.