Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The Writ Petition was preferred by the petitioner-A.Muruganandham, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the order dated 17. 2005 passed under Section 30 (3) of the National Highways Act, 1956, published in "Thina Thanthi" (Cuddalore Edition), with a further prayer to forbear the first respondent from taking any further action pursuant to the said order in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner situated at at U.Keeranur Village, Ulundurpet Taluk, comprising Survey No.450/3A 5, 0.05 acres, 450/3A 6, 0.01.5 acres, 450/3A 7-0.01.5 acres, 450/3A 8-0.02.5 acres, 450/3B 0.02.5 acres (Old Survey No.450/3 Total Extent 0.85 cent). 2. The lands in question were acquired under the National Highways Act (for short, "N.H. Act") by the National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as "the National Highways Authority"). 3. In the Writ Petition, the learned single Judge having passed the interim order, has made it absolute and as the Writ Petition was preferred without impleading the National Highways Authority as party-respondent, the Writ Appeal has been preferred by the National Highways Authority after obtaining leave of the Court. 4. In the aforesaid background, both the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal were heard together for disposal by this common judgment. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner challenged the Notification dated 17. 2005 issued under Section 3G(3) of the National Highways Act on the ground that the writ petitioner was not given notice. He relied on the publication made in the newspaper "Thina Thanthi" (Cuddalore Edition), dated 20.7.2005 at Sl.No.42 to show that the name of the writ petitioner was not reflected therein, but the name of one Rajalakshmi was shown. It is submitted that no notice was given to the writ petitioner and without hearing, the impugned Notification was issued. 6. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the National Highways authorities, submitted that certain lands adjoining National Highways-45 in U.Keeranur Village, Ulundhurpettai Taluk, were the lands in question to be acquired by the National Highways Authority for four laning and improvements of NH-45 and for this purpose, the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram was appointed as competent authority under Section 3(a) of the N.H. Act, 1956 by the Central Government Gazette No.858 S.O.1162(3), dated 211. 2001. Subsequently, a Special District Revenue Officer was appointed solely for acquisition of the lands for National Highways, Villupuram. 2001. Subsequently, a Special District Revenue Officer was appointed solely for acquisition of the lands for National Highways, Villupuram. The Government of India re-designated the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, Villupuram, as the competent authority under the N.H. Act. As per the land plan schedules furnished by the Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority of India, Tiruchirapalli, the followings lands in U.Keeranur Village of Ulundhurpettai Taluk were acquired. Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the N.H. Act was published on 16. 2004, followed by paper publication in Tamil newspaper "Dinamalar" dated 7. 2004 and in English newspaper "The New Indian Express" dated 7. 2004. Apart from that, the Notification aforesaid was also published in the Village on 17. 2004 under Section 3-A(3). Within the statutory period of 21 days, six other land owners, viz. (1)Thiru.Periyannan, S/o Muniyan (2)Kuppusamy, S/o Mannankatti, (3)Palanival, S/o Muniyan, (4) Tmt.Vaijayanthimala, D/o Subramaniyan, (5)Tmt.Muthuammal, W/o Mottaiyan and (6) Radhakrishnan, S/o Venkatachala Padayachi, filed objections. After necessary enquiry, the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways, disallowed the objections, vide proceedings Rc.A23/2003/NH-45/Ulundh/dated 1. 2005. The writ petitioner never preferred any objection to the said acquisition of the lands at the time of the Notification issued under Section 3-A(1) of the N.H. Act. Subsequently, the Government of India approved and published the declaration under Section 3-D(1) in the Gazette Notification dated 5. 2005, followed by issuance of public notice under Section 3-(G)(3), dated 17. 2005, as impugned in the present Writ Petition. Paper notice was published in the Tamil daily "Thina Thanthi" on 20.7.2005 and in the English newspaper "The Hindu", dated 20.7.2005 and public hearing was also given on 38. 2005 at Ulundurpettai. It is further submitted that the writ petitioner sent an Advocate notice on 29. 2005 to the competent authority through his counsel Mr.N.Anandhan, stating that he has inherited the lands through his mother Tmt.Adhilakshmi and grandmother Tmt.Sivabooshani Ammal. By the said notice, he desisted the acquisition of lands and also desisted from disbursing the compensation for the lands. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the National Highways Authority, further submitted that prior to the filing of the Writ Petition, award was passed on 31. 2007 after hearing the parties. He also relied on the relevant portion of the award, wherein the case of the writ petitioner has been discussed. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the National Highways Authority, further submitted that prior to the filing of the Writ Petition, award was passed on 31. 2007 after hearing the parties. He also relied on the relevant portion of the award, wherein the case of the writ petitioner has been discussed. 7. From the award, it appears that the objections of the writ petitioner-Muruganandham and Alagappa Udayar, were noticed, who claimed ownership of 0.42-1/2 acres of land by inheritance. It was found that they were not enjoying the property and one Mr.Naseerudheen Yousuf who has sold the property, earlier purchased the property from Mr.Pichaikkaran in 1982 itself and thereafter, number of transactions have taken place in the property. The present enjoyers of the property are Thiru.Kuppusamy, Tmt.Rajalakshmi and Thiru.Mohamed Sharief, who have built their house more than ten years prior to the acquisition. The writ petitioner and another who claimed to be the owners of the property, were not able to identify the portion claimed by them. 8. It was submitted on behalf of the National Highways Authority that the name of Tmt.Rajalakshmi having been shown in the Revenue records, it was reflected in the notice and the writ petitioner cannot claim that his name should have been published, there being a dispute relating to his title. 9. It appears from the award aforesaid that the writ petitioner and another having been found not enjoying the property for more than 25 years and as they could not identify the property claimed by them, it was decided to deposit the award amount in a competent civil Court and refer the dispute. 10. It is stated on behalf of the National Highways Authority that the award amount was subsequently deposited in the District Court, Villupuram on 28. 2007 and the dispute was also referred before the District Judge under Section 3-H(4) of the N.H. Act. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tahsildar, while supporting the case of the National Highways Authority, relied on the Supreme Court decision reported in 2000 (2) S.C.C. 48 (Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others). In the said case, the Supreme Court held that the land acquisition notifications cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after publication of the award. 12. In the said case, the Supreme Court held that the land acquisition notifications cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after publication of the award. 12. In view of the stand taken by the respondents and as we find that there is a dispute relating to the right and title of the writ petitioner in respect of the property in question and as the matter has already been referred to the District Court, Villupuram, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner. 13. The order of interim stay which was made absolute on 11. 2007 in M.P.No.3 of 2007 in W.P.No.4320 of 2007, is vacated. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The interim order passed in the Writ Appeal on 22. 2008 is also vacated. The Writ Appeal is allowed. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed. But in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.