JUDGMENT A.P. SHAH, C.J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Perused the records including the order of the learned single Judge. The challenge is to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) (hereinafter will be referred to as “the Act” for short) , which was in respect of the lands of the appellants in Survey Nos. 51/lA, 51/5, 51/1B, 51/3, 51/4 and 51/6, Ankarankuppam Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District to an extent of 1.16.5 Hectares. 2. The learned single Judge, on a perusal of the records, found that the notice under Section 4 (2) of the Act was duly served on the appellants and appellants 1 and 2 participated in the enquiry and that writ petition which was filed after passing of the award is not maintainable in law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Tejkaur and Others v. State of Punjab AIR 2003 SC 2414 : (2003) 4 SCC 485 : (2003) 2 MLJ 132 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants stated that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Tejkaur and others v. State of Punjab (supra) that after the award is passed in a land acquisition proceedings, no writ petition can be entertained, is not applicable to the acquisition under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, which is different from the Central Act, i.e. Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned counsel submitted that under the State Act, there is no provision for issuing notice under Section 9 and unlike the land owner who receives notice under Section 9 after Section 6 declaration under the Central Act, there is no opportunity for the land owner to challenge the acquisition proceedings before the Award is passed. 4. There is no doubt that there is some substance in the above contention of the appellants, but we find no merit in the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. The proposed acquisition is for providing facilities to houseless Adi-dravidars and the District Collector has taken into consideration the objections of the appellants as well as the report of the Special Tahsildar. Thus there is no infirmity in the acquisition proceedings. 5. Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petition dismissed.