Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The appeal is directed against the order dated 012. 2005 made in W.P.No.13204 of 2005, wherein the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire an extent of 46. 31 Hectares for the public purpose of construction of drinking water tank at Kanakalapet was challenged. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. 2. As seen from the order of the learned single Judge, the proceedings was challenged on two grounds. The first ground was that when an alternate and adjacent poramboke land was available besides the land of M/s.Lakshmi Oil Mills, which is also very much nearer to the scheme, yet, the respondents have not chosen to select the said land, but selected the land of the appellant, which is impermissible. The other ground of attack was that the Andhra Pradesh Government proposed to put up water tank and issued a notification for the purpose of acquisition of land and thus there was no real public purpose and the acquisition was unwarranted. The learned Judge, after hearing the Government Pleader, has concluded the issue by stating that the first ground canvassed by the writ petitioner that the alternative lands viz., poramboke land and the lands belonging to one defunct Lakshmi Mill were not acquired is untenable, since it is not open to the petitioner or this Court to direct the Government to select a particular land. The Government is the ultimate authority to select the lands suitable for the purpose. The Court also accepted the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the Committee appointed by the Government has visited the lands and submitted a suitability report and following the same, the acquisition proceedings were initiated. The Court rejected the second ground of attack also by accepting the contention of the respondent that the acquisition proceedings initiated by Andhra Pradesh Government was for a different purpose. 3. Before us, the learned Senior Counsel raised the contention that the appellant was not furnished with the copy of the selection Committee report and hence Section 5-A enquiry is vitiated, which was not argued in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. 3. Before us, the learned Senior Counsel raised the contention that the appellant was not furnished with the copy of the selection Committee report and hence Section 5-A enquiry is vitiated, which was not argued in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. When this factual position has been pointed out, the learned Senior Counsel, who is always exhibiting cool and composed behaviour, for the reasons best known to him, submitted that if the Court is not inclined to allow him to argue this point, he is not arguing anymore in this case and sat down. 4. We perused the materials on record and the order of the learned single Judge. 5. As stated in the previous paragraphs, before the learned single Judge, only the two points were argued and it has been rejected by the learned single Judge. The point as to non-furnishing of selection committee report, which rendered the 5-A enquiry vitiated, has not been argued before the learned single Judge. 6. It is well settled legal principle that if a point is not mentioned in the judgment of the Court, it shall be presumed that the point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. No appeal would lie on such point. We can say one of the latest decision for the above said principle in the case of MOHD. AKRAM ANSARI VS. CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in 2007(8) Supreme 581 , wherein the Supreme Court has delineated the issue as follows: ".... In this connection we would like to say that there is a presumption in law that a Judge deals with all the points which have been pressed before him. It often happens that in a petition or appeal several points are taken in the memorandum of the petition or appeal, but at the time of arguments only some of these points are pressed. Naturally a Judge will deal only with the points which are pressed before him in the arguments and it will be presumed that the appellant gave up the other points. Otherwise he would have dealt with them also. If a point is not mentioned in the judgment of a Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttable presumption. Otherwise he would have dealt with them also. If a point is not mentioned in the judgment of a Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttable presumption. In case the petitioner contends that he had pressed that point also (which has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment), it is open to him to file an application before the same learned Judge (or Bench) which delivered the impugned judgment, and if he satisfies the Judge (or Bench) that the other points were in fact pressed, but were not dealt with in the impugned judgment, it is open to the concerned Court to pass appropriate orders, including an order of review. However, it is not ordinarily open to the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below, has not been dealt with in the judgment of the Court below. The party who has this grievance must approach the same Court which passed the judgment, and urge that the other points were pressed but not dealt with." 7. Another aspect of the matter is also against the appellant. The award has been passed as early as on 18.03.2005 and the writ petition came to be filed some where in April, 2005. Hence after the entire process has been completed, there is no point in hearing the alleged procedural irregularity stated to have committed in the 5-A enquiry. 8. A Division bench of this Court in the case of Ramalingam v. State of T.N. 2005 (3) CTC, has held as follows : "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 petition itself were not maintainable and they should have been dismissed on this ground itself." In the case of S.Harshavardhan v. State of Tamilnadu, 2005 (3) CTC 691, a Division bench of this Court has held as follows : "It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court vide Tej Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others 2003 (4) SCC 485 that writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings should not be entertained after the award has been passed. In that case, the award was passed on 15.03.1994 whereas the writ petition was filed on 12.04.1994, i.e., after the award was given. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed as belated. Similarly in Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, AIR 2000 SC 671 , the Supreme Court observed vide paragraph 17 : "In any event, after the award is passed, no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceedings there under." The Supreme Court also observed in that decision that this has been the consistent view of the Court, e.g., C.Padma and others v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 1997 (2) SCC 627 ; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 482 , etc. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition was rightly dismissed on the ground of laches." 9. The above rulings are categorical to the effect that no writ petition should be entertained after the award under the Act is passed. The appeal has to be rejected on the ground of laches alone. As stated in the above paragraphs, the point in respect of 5A enquiry was started to be argued by the learned Senior Counsel and thereafter the learned counsel resumed without making any argument. It is for the counsel either to argue or not to argue the case. If no argument is made, the Court is left with no other remedy except to dispose of the case on the available materials and the argument made before it. We find no merit either in the appeal or in the argument of the learned counsel. Hence, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. If no argument is made, the Court is left with no other remedy except to dispose of the case on the available materials and the argument made before it. We find no merit either in the appeal or in the argument of the learned counsel. Hence, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WAMP No.4255 of 2005 is also dismissed.