Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The writ petitioners challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 1. 2009 having dismissed the writ petitions, the writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals. 2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one. 3. The permission under Section 4(1) of the Act was obtained by the Collector on 110. 1998, followed by the enquiry notice under Section 4(2) issued on 11. 1998. Permission under Section 4(1) was obtained on 12. 1999 and notification under Section 4(1) was gazetted on 21. 1999, approved on 3. 1999. The award enquiry in Form III was made on the basis of objection filed by the land owners, wherein after, the award was passed on 23. 1999. 4. From the writ petitions, it will be evident that after the award was passed, the writ petitioners have challenged the notification under Section 4(1) by filing the writ petitions on 30.3.1999. 5. In the case of Ramalingam and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu [ 2005 (3) CTC 1 ], a Division Bench of this Court, having noticed the Supreme Court, held as under: "In these appeals, the facts are that the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was given on 11. 1996 whereas the writ petitions were filed on 211. 1996, i.e. after the award was passed. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no writ petition should be entertained after the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been passed vide Tej Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2003 (4) SCC 485 ; Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, AIR 2000 SC 671 ; Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, Uttar Pradesh v. Suresh Nand Jayal, 1997 (9) SCC 224 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan and others, 1996 (1) SCC 250 . Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the writ petitions itself were not maintainable and they should have been dismissed on this ground itself. Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed. Connected WAMP Nos.1595 to 1599 of 2005 are closed." 6. Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the writ petitions itself were not maintainable and they should have been dismissed on this ground itself. Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed. Connected WAMP Nos.1595 to 1599 of 2005 are closed." 6. Similar view was taken by this Court in Harshavardhan,S. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005 (3) CTC 691], wherein, the Court held that the writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings should not be entertained after the award has been passed. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [ 2008 (4) SCC 695 = AIR 2008 SC 494], wherein, the Supreme Court held that the writ petition filed, after the award has become final, is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. 8. In the aforesaid background, the writ petitions having been preferred after the land acquisition award was passed, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are also dismissed.