Judgment The instant writ petition is by one T.H.Rajeswara Rao seeking a direction to the first respondent i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) to pay compensation for the land admeasuring Acs.0.08 guntas 24 Sq.yards in S.No.246 situated at Ankushapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, or in the alternative to allot the same extent of land to the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly purchased the subject land from Padamati Balreddy under a registered sale deed dated 10.7.1986 being document No.3252 and about twelve years thereafter on 16.7.1998 obtained pattadar pass book and title deed (PPB). It is the case of the petitioner that on 25.10.2000 he applied to the Gram Panchayat seeking building permission. While the same was pending he commenced excavation work on 21.5.2001 for construction of compound wall. He alleges that the officials of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL – the third respondent) objected for the excavation. The petitioner then filed O.S.No.358 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, East & North, Ranga Reddy District against the third respondent for permanent injunction. He also obtained interim orders. In the written statement filed by the HPCL, it was revealed that the land was acquired at their instance vide proceedings dated 16.6.2000. After coming to know the same, the petitioner made enquiries. The land was proposed for acquisition and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued on 27.3.2000; the notification was published in two local Newspapers, namely, “Pledge” and “Bhagyanagar” and in all the notifications the name of the petitioner, which was already mutated, was not shown; and therefore, the acquisition without notice to the petitioner is illegal. The petitioner also learnt that the compensation amount was paid to his vendor, P.Balreddy. The first respondent filed counter affidavit. The land was proposed for acquisition to HPCL for the purpose of laying underground pipeline from Vijayawada to Secunderabad. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was gazetted on 27.3.2000; declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 04.4.2000; the notices were issued under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act; and the award was passed on 23.11.2000. The writ petition is filed on 13.11.2003 after lapse of 3 years. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was gazetted on 27.3.2000; declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 04.4.2000; the notices were issued under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act; and the award was passed on 23.11.2000. The writ petition is filed on 13.11.2003 after lapse of 3 years. As the compensation amount was already paid to the owner of the land, the petitioner’s remedy is to approach the Civil Court. It is the further case of the first respondent that as per the Pahani 1996-1997, M/s.M.Yadi Reddy, P.Balreddy and Workers Society (occupier J.Azaraiah) were shown to be pattadars and possessors and the name of the petitioner was not found as owner. Even though the wide publicity by public notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act and notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued, the petitioner did not file any claim or raise any objection. Smt.J.Shobha & Naveen Goud claimed compensation for Acs.0.05 guntas; P.Venkat Reddy claimed Acs.0.05 guntas; and Fellowship of Professional Workers claimed Acs.0.10 guntas. At their instance, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act being O.P.No.388 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner is aware of the same, but did not choose to file application to get impleaded in the O.P. The second respondent also filed counter affidavit supporting the first respondent. The counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Das Mahapathra, submits that the petitioner obtained PPB very much prior to initiation of the LA proceedings and therefore, the acquisition of the land without notice to the petitioner is unsustainable. According to him, the two Newspapers Pledge and Bhagyanagar are not widely circulated in the area, and the same would not cure the defect. As the compensation is paid to the vendors who have no title, the respondents are bound to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Per contra, the Government Pleader for Revenue (LA) submits that after receiving the requisition from HPCL in 1999 for acquiring the land admeasuring Acs.74.14 guntas including the subject land, necessary particulars were taken from revenue records before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Per contra, the Government Pleader for Revenue (LA) submits that after receiving the requisition from HPCL in 1999 for acquiring the land admeasuring Acs.74.14 guntas including the subject land, necessary particulars were taken from revenue records before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. As per the Pahani for the year 1996-1997, three pattadars and possessors are owners and their names were mentioned but, in the award enquiry Smt.J.Shobha & Naveen Goud, P.Venkat Reddy and Fellowship of Professional Workers participated and claimed the amount to whom the compensation was paid. The petitioner was not vigilant although he was aware of the reference under Section 18 of the Act. As the writ petition was filed after period of limitation, it has been rejected on the ground of delay. In any event the petitioner’s remedy is to proceed against the vendors invoking indemnifying clause in the sale deed under which the vendors indemnified the vendee and agreed to compensation for any loss suffered by the petitioner. The only question is whether the petitioner has made out a case for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction in his favour. There is no dispute that the LA proceedings which commenced with the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 27.3.2000 stood concluded by passing of the award dated 23.11.2000. The writ petition is filed on 13.11.2003 after lapse of about 3 years. The delay on the part of the petitioner is certainly fatal to his case. The Supreme Court consistently held that, “when once an award is passed, ordinarily, a writ petition would not lie and the aggrieved person has to work out his remedies elsewhere”. In Swaika Properties (P) Ltd v State of Rajasthan (2008) 4 SCC 695 ), the Supreme Court referring to the case law on the point reiterated that, “the writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of the land, if filed after possession having been taken, is not maintainable”. The counter averment made by the first respondent and supported by the second respondent that after passing of the award possession was handed over to HPCL remains uncontroverted. Therefore the writ petition itself is not maintainable. The counter averment made by the first respondent and supported by the second respondent that after passing of the award possession was handed over to HPCL remains uncontroverted. Therefore the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Whether the non-mentioning of the name of the petitioner in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and subsequently the notices of award enquiry is of any assistance to the petitioner. Under Section 9(1), the District Collector is required to cause public notice at convenient places near the land which is sought to be acquired stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims may be made by all such persons regarding compensation. Under sub-section (3) of Section 9, the Collector is required to serve notice on the occupier, if there is one, and on such persons known or believed to be interested therein. If any person resides elsewhere, the Collector is required to send the notice by Registered Post under sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Act. The contention that Section 9(1) and Section 9(3) notices were issued to the occupier is not denied. What is denied is that no notice was served on the petitioner under Section 9 (3). When the Revenue record discloses the vendors of the petitioner as the owners and occupiers of the land, the issue of Section 9(1) and issue of 9(3) notices to them is sufficient compliance of the provisions of law. The mere lacuna in not issuing a notice under Section 9(3) does not vitiate the land acquisition proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v Mahalakshmi Ammal (AIR 1996 SC 866), wherein it was held that, “even if there is an irregularity in service of notice under Sections 9 and 10, it would be a curable irregularity and on account thereof award made under Section 11 does not become invalid. Award is only an offer on behalf of the State”. It was also held by the Supreme Court that if compensation was accepted without protest, it binds such party and possession of the acquired land would be taken only by way of a memorandum, panchanama, which is a legally accepted form as it would not be possible to take any physical possession. The notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 27.3.2000. The notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 27.3.2000. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 13.11.2003 i.e., after lapse of three years. According to the Supreme Court, if possession was taken by the Government, after a long lapse of time, the petitioner cannot be allowed to impeach the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that no notice is served under Section 9(3) of the Act. A reference may be made to a judgment of a Division Bench, to which I was a member, in Pamulaparthy Narasimha Reddy v Government of A.P. (2002 Suppl.(1) ALD 724 (DB) wherein this Court after referring to S.S.Rathore v State of M.P. ( AIR 1990 SC 10 ), A.Hamsaveni v State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 52), State of Maharashtra v Digambar ( AIR 1995 SC 1991 ), High Court of M.P. v Mahesh Prakash ( AIR 1994 SC 2595 ), ruled that the person who failed to take any steps and sleeps over the matter cannot be allowed to raise the grounds as raised herein in challenge to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition, for the above reasons, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.