JUDGMENT :- 1. The writ petition was filed originally by seven petitioners who are the residents of Oonnukal Puliankulam Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District seeking to challenge the order of the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.1419, Social Welfare Department, dated 02.06.1986 issued under Section 4(1) and a declaration made under Section 6 of the of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (shortly "the Act") in G.O.(Ms) No.1378, Social Welfare Department, dated 12.08.1997 and seek to set aside the same. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 24.09.2002. Pending the writ petition, interim stay was granted against dispossession. 3. Notwithstanding the same, it was claimed that the beneficiaries of the lands acquired had trespassed into the property and tried to fell several trees and occupied the land. Therefore, contempt proceedings were sought to be initiated against the then Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Madurai in Cont.P.No.805 of 2009. This Court did not order any notice on the contempt petition and merely directed the learned Government Advocate to get instructions from the respondent. 4. Even during the pendency of the proceedings, the original third petitioner by name N.Veeranan died and on his behalf, his legal representatives were brought on record as P-8 to P-15 vide order dated 29.11.2010. Subsequently, since the original first petitioner N.Sethur also passed away, his legal representatives were brought on record as P-16 to P-21 by order dated 27.04.2011. 5. In view of the inter-connectivity between the writ petition and contempt petition, with the consent of the parties, both the matters have taken up together. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that they were the owners of lands in various survey numbers in Onnukal Puliankulam Village, Melur Taluk and those lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing scheme for the Adi-Dravidar Welfare, more particularly, for providing house sites for the Adi-Dravidars of that area. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings and no notice was given under Section 5-A of the Act. It is also claimed that since the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 providing Adi-Dravidar Welfare Schemes were came into existence, the proceedings initiated under the Central Act were not valid. The petitioners contention in invalidating the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Central Act are without substance. It is also claimed that since the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 providing Adi-Dravidar Welfare Schemes were came into existence, the proceedings initiated under the Central Act were not valid. The petitioners contention in invalidating the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Central Act are without substance. As can be seen from the records that the acquisition were made for a social welfare scheme under the Central Act and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued as early as on 02.06.1986 and a copy of the notification was published in two daily newspapers and the substance of the notification was also effected in a convenient place in the locality. It is only after the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the declarations under Section 6 of the Act have been made. 7. It is no doubt true that at the time when the acquisition made, the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, which is a special legislation, had come into force and in the normal circumstances, the acquisition ought to have been made only under the State Act and not under the Central Act. But however, in September 1981, a Division Bench of this Court had struck down the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. Though the State went on appeal to the Supreme Court, they did not obtain any interim order. Therefore, during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the acquisition for various social welfare schemes including Adi-Dravidar Welfare were continued to be made only under the Central Act. 8. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Ananthi Ammal reported in 1995 (1) SCC 519 has upheld the vires of the Act. The Supreme Court in para 18 of its judgment, had observed as follows: "18.... 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." 9. 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." 9. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioners cannot be countenanced, since the Supreme Court itself had given a seal of approval for such acquisitions during the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. The petitioners nowhere in the affidavit (that too 7 of them) mentioned anything about the various proceedings and they cannot plead ignorance about such a move. The petitioners are also guilty of delay and laches in challenging the acquisition proceedings which had been gone through in terms of the procedures prescribed under the Central Act. There are only technical grounds raised after six years of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and also does not stand to reason in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 10. The writ petition is misconceived, bereft of any legal reasons and hence, the same stands dismissed. No costs. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.805 OF 2009 This Court do not find any case made out for entertaining the contempt petition as there is no prima facie allegations against the respondents. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dismissed.