Judgment : Common Order: 1. Heard Mr.R.Doraisamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs.Sheba, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in all these five cases is whether the respondent Special Tahsildar was right in issuing the notice in Form No.10 with Annexure-XII referring to Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and asking the petitioners to vacate and deliver possession of their lands on or before a particular date. 3. It is an admitted case in all these five cases that the acquisition proceedings were initiated under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, which reached finality by publication of a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/78 by the District Collector, Salem. 4. At the relevant point of time, the Act was held to be unconstitutional by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.797 of 1980, dated 09.09.1981. The State has taken up the matter before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has allowed the plea of the State. The judgment has subsequently been reported in AIR 1995 SC 2114 (State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. Ananthi Ammal and others). In the said case the Supreme Court while upholding the said legislation, held that the Section relating to the provision of awarding compensation by instalments alone was invalid. The Supreme Court was conscious of all the pending matters and gave direction with reference to the pending proceedings in paragraph 18 which is as follows: "18. Section 20 of the said Act states that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, save as expressly provided in the said Act, shall cease to apply to any land which is required for the purpose specified in Section 4(1) and such land shall be acquired only in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Consequently, Section 22 makes the provisions of the said Act applicable also to cases in which proceedings have been started before the commencement of the said Act under the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of Harijan Welfare Schemes, provided that no awards have been made under the Land Acquisition Act. We see no unreasonableness in this provision, particularly having regard to the terms of Section 20. We see no unreasonableness in this provision, particularly having regard to the terms of Section 20. We must, however, take into account the fact that the judgment under appeal striking down the said Act was delivered as far back as September 1981, and no stay thereof was obtained from this Court. It is likely, therefore, that in cases where proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had already been started to acquire lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes, they might have been revived and completed in the interregnum. We, therefore, make it clear that the provisions of Section 22 shall have no effect in such cases where awards have been made." 5. It was stated that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, even if an Award is passed under the Central Act, that was not to be reopened and only in cases where no finality is reached, the authorities were constrained to start proceedings afresh under the State Act in view of Section 20 of the State Act. 6. In the present case no such contingency has ever arisen for complying with paragraph 18 of the Judgment in Ananthi Ammal case (cited supra). The Award in the present cases are passed only under the State Act and the declaratory relief given by this Court holding the Act unconstitutional has now been removed by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court. It is axiomatic under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, such a declaration is binding on all the Courts. Therefore, the relief obtained by the petitioners which is declaratory relief having been now removed by an order of the Supreme Court, the Awards passed against them has to come to life. Once the Award becomes final, it is obligatory on the part of the land owners to vacate and surrender possession of the land. Therefore, the authorities merely reminding the petitioners or their legal representatives to hand over possession of the land cannot be found fault with by this Court. Mere wrong quoting of the provisions of the Central Act will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. At the maximum the impugned letter will have to be construed as a mere reminder to the land owners to surrender possession which is a statutory obligation made under the Act. Mere wrong quoting of the provisions of the Central Act will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. At the maximum the impugned letter will have to be construed as a mere reminder to the land owners to surrender possession which is a statutory obligation made under the Act. The petitioners having lost the main battle regarding the constitutional validity of the Act cannot now clutch on to a wrong reference of the provision of Law found in the impugned letter sent by the respondent Tahsildar. Under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Act 31/78, it is clearly stated that on and from the date on which the Notification under Section 4(1) is published in the District Gazette, the land absolutely vest with the Government free from all encumbrance. Therefore, there is no escape for the petitioners to stall further action taken by the respondents in recovering possession. There is no cause of action to challenge the impugned notice. 7. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No.1314 of 2002, the third respondent has clearly stated that there is no necessity to issue any such letter as already the mandatory requirement of law has been complied with in the case of the petitioners. In fact in the other counter affidavit, the District Collector, Salem has stated that the enjoyment of the acquired lands by the petitioners will amount to trespass and they are liable for criminal prosecution. 8. Under these circumstances, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned letter sent by the respondents directing the petitioners to hand over possession of the land. The writ petitions are misconceived, devoid of merits and accordingly will stand dismissed. Since the petitioners even after the acquisition made after 28 years of the Award are holding on to the land, it is well open to the respondents to take measures to secure possession of the lands and also to proceed to distribute the same for the purpose for which it was acquired. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.