Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. Both the appeals have been preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu against the common order dated 25th August, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.24170 and 24171 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge, without discussing the case on merits, giving reference to another case, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the Section 4(1) notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.826, Housing and Urban Development and the Section 6 declaration issued in G.O.Ms.No.389, Housing and Urban Development of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The aforesaid fact will be evident from the order passed by the learned single Judge, as quoted hereunder:- "Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate agree that in an identical set of facts, this Court in respect of the very same Notification and Survey Number, filed by one Seetharatnam in W.P.No.18304 of 1997 dated 17. 2000, granted the relief and pursuant to the same, the Government also by its proceedings dated 38. 1998 complied with the order by directing the Metropolitan authorities to issue No Objection Certificate and the same order can be passed in these writ petitions also. 2. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench, which has been followed in W.P.No.15639 of 1990 dated 210. 1998, the writ petitions are allowed in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners are concerned. The respondents are hereby directed to proceed further and pass appropriate orders in granting No Objection Certificate. No costs." .3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 7th June, 1978 and the declaration under Section 6 was made on 6th June, 1981. Subsequently, Award No.12/86 was passed on 14th August, 1986 and possession was taken and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 21st October, 1986. The writ petitions were filed by the subsequent purchasers, who purchased the land in 2004, much after the award was passed. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners referred to a judgment of this Court in V. Parimala v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1991 Writ L.R. 29). The writ petitions were filed by the subsequent purchasers, who purchased the land in 2004, much after the award was passed. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners referred to a judgment of this Court in V. Parimala v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1991 Writ L.R. 29). It is submitted that the same notifications were under challenge and the Division Bench taking into consideration the fact that the notices were sent to the land owners and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted after a long delay, the notifications in question were set aside. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and noticed their rival contentions. 6. It has not been disputed by the respondents/writ petitioners that they are the subsequent purchasers. They purchased the land in 2004, i.e., after about 18 years from award. By that time, the Housing Board had taken possession of the land in question. So far as the case of V. Parimala is concerned, we find that that was a case of subsequent purchaser who purchased the land in 1981, i.e., much prior to the award and objection was raised at proper stage. In the circumstances, the case of the petitioners cannot be compared with the case of V. Parimala (supra) or the judgment as referred to by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. 7. The question whether a writ petition after long delay and passing of award should be entertained against the land acquisition proceeding fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in S. Harshavardhan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005 (3) CTC 691). Taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court, the Court held that the writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings should not be entertained after the award had been passed. .8. In a recent case, when similar issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd., v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 4 SCC 695 ), the Supreme Court held that the writ petition filed after passing of award deserves to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case. The writ petitioners can be said to have waived by their own inaction their objections to the acquisition on the ground of extinction of public purpose. The writ petitioners can be said to have waived by their own inaction their objections to the acquisition on the ground of extinction of public purpose. The Court further held that such a writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 9. In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court and the Supreme Court decision as referred to above and the fact that the learned single Judge, without discussion of the case of the respondents/writ petitioners, passed a mechanical order, there is no other option, but to set aside the order impugned in the writ appeals. The impugned order dated 28. 2005 passed in W.P.Nos.24170 and 24171 of 2005 is accordingly set aside. Both the writ appeals are allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.3 & 4 of 2007 are closed.