Judgment :- The issue involved in this case is relating to the acquisition of lands for Harijan welfare under the Tamil Nadu acquisition of scheme 31 of 1978. The notice under Section 4(2) of the Act has been served on the fourth respondent on 11.09.1998. However, the fourth respondent has refused to receive the same and returned the cover. Admittedly, on the said date when the notice was issued to the fourth respondent, the revenue records stood in the name of the fourth respondent, who also remained the owner as on that date. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the fourth respondent has entered an agreement with the petitioners to sell the property, which is the subject matter of the land acquisition by an agreement dated 22.01.1993. Since the fourth respondent has failed to convey the properties to the petitioners as per the said agreement, the petitioners have filed the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.1000 of 1975 on the file of the III Additional Sub Judge, Madurai and the said suit was decreed by the civil Court on 07.01.1999, which is after the notice issued by the authority under Section 4(2) of the Act which was on 11.09.1998. Subsequently, the notification under Section 4(1) came to be issued on 211. 1998 and thereafter award was passed on 12.03.1999. The writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners on 25.06.1999. 3. The issue raised by the petitioners in this case is that when the fourth respondent executed the agreement in favour of the petitioners on 22.01.1993 and at that time when the notice under Section 4(2) was issued by the third respondent, the suit filed by the petitioners for the specific performance against the fourth respondent in O.S.No.1000 of 1995 was pending, it was the duty on the part of the third respondent, the acquisition officer, to serve notice on the petitioners, since the petitioners are the interested persons as per the Act 31 of 1978. The said submission on the face of it, is not acceptable for more than one reasons. Merely because an agreement to sale is executed by the owner it does not mean that the ownership straight away transferred to the agreement holder. 4. The said submission on the face of it, is not acceptable for more than one reasons. Merely because an agreement to sale is executed by the owner it does not mean that the ownership straight away transferred to the agreement holder. 4. In this case, admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioners for specific performance came to be decreed in their favour on 07.01.1999 by that time the notification under Section 4 (2) was issued on 11.09.1998 on the fourth respondent, who was the owner as per the revenue records. If the fourth respondent who remained the owner on the said date of 4 (2) notification refused to receive the Notice and file objection, the obligation of the third respondent, serving notice on the owner comes to an end and the subsequent proceedings under 4(1) notification cannot be questioned on that ground. In view of the same, there is absolutely no difficulty to come to the conclusion that acquisition procedures followed in this case are as per the provisions of the Act. There is one another issue which is relevant in this case namely that in the land acquisition proceedings, award was passed on 12.03.1999 while the writ petition was filed before this Court on 25.06.1999. On the basis of latches also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions reported in TAJ KAWR AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ( 2003 SCC 485 ). In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that now that the suit for specific performance has been decreed in favour of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners have become owners. Even though the fourth respondent has filed appeal against the said judgment, there is no stay of the decree passed by the trial Court by the first appellate Court and therefore the petitioners interest should be protected if the award has not been released to the fourth respondent. It is made clear that in the event of award amount not being released in the name of the fourth respondent who is the owner, it is open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in the manner known to law.