Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Acquisition of the Petitioner's land in Survey No.158/1c part and 158/1d in Mallapuram village, Peraiyur Taluk Madurai District by the respodnent in his proceedings ordered in AD&TW Dept. in Na.Ka.No.80795/96/AD9 dated 30.8.96, Madurai District Gazette dated 8.10.96 page 81 of the Gazette and after quashing the same direct the first respondent to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner's property.) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner and the affidavit has been signed by the second son of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the land to the extent of 80 cents bearing Survey No.158/1d and also holder of 1/3 share of land in Survey No.158/1c. Proceedings were initiated by the respondents for acquiring of lands situated in Peraiyur Taluk Mallapuram Village for providing house sites and pathway to Adidravidars of M.Perumal Patty village. 2. On 14.3.96 notice in Form I, Rule 3(i) as contemplated under Section 4(2)of the Tamilnadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, Tamilnadu Act XXXI of 1978 (hereinafter called the Act) was issued by the respondents and served on the petitioner personally on 28.3.1996. On 29.3.1996, the petitioner filed his detailed objection. The objections of the petitioner and other land owners were sent to the Collector for approval on 17.05.1996. The collector granted his approval on 30.08.1996. On 08.10.1996 Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in Form II rule 3 (ii) was published in the gazette. On 12.2.1997, notice as contemplated under Rule 5(1) in Form III for award enquiry was issued and served on the petitioner. The award enquiry was conducted on 06.03.1997 and the petitioner filed his objection on 06.03.1997 itself and the award came to be passed on 18.3.1997. According to the respondent, the patta has been issued and the changes in the revenue records have been effected. 3. The only contention for the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice has been served on the petitioner as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act. The petitioner contends that only after he received notice in Form III Rule 5(1) dated 12.2.1997, he came to know about the acquisition proceedings. 3. The only contention for the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice has been served on the petitioner as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act. The petitioner contends that only after he received notice in Form III Rule 5(1) dated 12.2.1997, he came to know about the acquisition proceedings. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he has settled the property in favour of his sons by a settlement deed dated 08.04.1996 registered as document NO.225/96 and therefore, he had nothing to do with the property and notice should have been issued to the persons concerned. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed and the original records were produced by the learned Government Advocate at the time of final hearing. On perusal of the original records the details of the notices issued and the enquiry proceedings conducted as stated above were found to be correct. 5. The contention of the petitioner that no notice has been served on him cannot be sustained, as is evident from the records the petitioner has signed and received the notice in Form I rule 3(1) on 28.3.1996 and filed his objections on 29.03.1996. It is only thereafter that the settlement deed dated 08.04.1996 was executed in favour of the sons of the petitioner. Even after settling the properties in favour of his sons as stated the writ petitioner has received the Form III Rule 5(1) award enquiry notice dated 12.2.1997 and participated in the award enquiry and filed his objection dated 06.03.1997. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that proper notice has not been served on him is not sustainable. 6. In this case the award has been already passed on 18.3.1997 and the writ petition has been filed on 08.07.1997. In view of the decision held by the Apex Court in MUNICIPAL COUNSIL AHMED NAGAR AND ANOTHER v. SHAH HYDER BEIG AND OTHERS (2000 AIRSCW 197), and 2002 (1) LACC.Pg.329.V.KRISHNA v GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU of this Court the challenge to notification cannot be sustained after passing of the award. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.