IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 2.9.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN Writ Appeal Nos.845 to 847 of 2009 C.Kannappa Pillai .. Appellant/Petitioner in W.A.No.845/09 A.Ali Baig .. Appellant/Petitioner in W.A.No.846/09 R.Anandayee .. Appellant/Petitioner in W.A.No.847/09 Vs. 1. The District Collector Villupuram District Cuddalore. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer & Special Tahsildar (ADW) Gingee Taluk Respondents/Respondents in Gingee. all W.As. Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 6.1.2009 made in W.P.Nos.5317 to 5319 of 1999, this Writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings dated 04.03.1999 in R.C.No.A65/98 on the file of the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (ADW) Gingee Taluk, Gingee (the 2nd respondent herein) and quash the same in so far as it related tht lands bearing S.Nos.(1)76/2A, 85/9A, 85/7A, 85/8A, 85/8B, 85/10A, 87/3, 87/16A, 87/16E and 87/16D and totally to an extent of 1.02.5 hectares (in WP.No.5317/99) (2) S.No.85/11A and 85/11B totally to an extent of 0.09.5 hectares (in WP.No.5318/99) (3) S.No.86/3, 86/4, 86/5 and 86/6 totally to an extent of 0.34.0 hectares (WP.No.5319/99) respectively in Keelamalai, Anandapuram, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District Pin - 605201 belonging to the petitioners ar concerned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.D.Sreenivasan Addl. Govt. Pleader J U D G M E N T (Delivered by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.) The writ petitioners challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 6.1.2009 having dismissed the writ petitions, the writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals. 2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one. 3. The permission under Section 4(1) of the Act was obtained by the Collector on 12.10.1998, followed by the enquiry notice under Section 4(2) issued on 4.11.1998. Permission under Section 4(1) was obtained on 11.2.1999 and notification under Section 4(1) was gazetted on 25.1.1999, approved on 4.3.1999. The award enquiry in Form III was made on the basis of objection filed by the land owners, wherein after, the award was passed on 24.3.1999. 4. From the writ petitions, it will be evident that after the award was passed, the writ petitioners have challenged the notification under Section 4(1) by filing the writ petitions on 30.3.1999. 5. In the case of Ramalingam and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu [2005 (3) CTC 1], a Division Bench of this Court, having noticed the Supreme Court, held as under: "In these appeals, the facts are that the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was given on 7.11.1996 whereas the writ petitions were filed on 28.11.1996, i.e. after the award was passed. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no writ petition should be entertained after the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been passed – vide Tej Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2003 (4) SCC 485; Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, AIR 2000 SC 671; Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, Uttar Pradesh v. Suresh Nand Jayal, 1997 (9) SCC 224; State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan and others, 1996 (1) SCC 250. Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the writ petitions itself were not maintainable and they should have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dismissed on this ground itself. Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed. Connected WAMP Nos.1595 to 1599 of 2005 are closed." 6. Similar view was taken by this Court in Harshavardhan,S. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005 (3) CTC 691], wherein, the Court held that the writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings should not be entertained after the award has been passed. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2008 (4) SCC 695 = AIR 2008 SC 494], wherein, the Supreme Court held that the writ petition filed, after the award has become final, is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. 8. In the aforesaid background, the writ petitions having been preferred after the land acquisition award was passed, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kpl To 1. The District Collector Villupuram District 2. The Land Acquisition Officer & Special Tahsildar (ADW) Gingee Taluk, Gingee. 1 cc To Mr.S.Subbiah, Advocate, SR.44122. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.44168. W.A.Nos.845 to 847 of 2009. CK(CO) RVL 14.09.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/