JUDGMENT :- 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records of Section 4(1) Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.3089, Social Welfare, dated 28.12.1983 published in Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 4.1.1984 and all further process including declaration order under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1011, Social Welfare, dated 10.3.1984 published in Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 13.3.1984 on the file of the respondents and to quash the same in respect of the lands of the petitioners in Survey No.148/7 to the extent of 69 cents, Survey No.148/9 to the extent of 62 cents situated at Chembarambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 2. According to the petitioners, the lands bearing Survey No.148/7 to the extent of 69 cents and 148/9 to the extent of 62 cents, were acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 (for short, 'the Act') by the first respondent. On 30.7.2008 there was an attempt to trespass and lay boundary stones by the subordinate officials of the third respondent, who informed the petitioners that their lands were acquired vide notification dated 4.1.1984 under Section 4(1) of the Act. The petitioners sent a legal notice dated 31.7.2008 to the respondents and made an application dated 8.8.2008 by demanding copies of relevant documents, by which, the lands were allegedly acquired from the office of the first respondent. The petitioners' application was answered on 11.8.2008 and after preserving those documents, the petitioners immediately filed this Writ Petition. The first respondent was alleged to have issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, on 4.1.1984 for acquisition of lands bearing Survey No.147/7, 148/9 and 151/4 at Chembarambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, to the extent of 2 acres and 28 cents showing Smt.Vasanthammal, W/o Mr.Durai Mudaliar as owner of the said lands. The initiation of action under the provisions of Sections 4(1) and 5-A and 6 notification under the Act and award proceedings and even the other proceedings under the Act were all processed with Smt.Vasantha Durai. The said Smt.Vasantha Durai and her relatives seem to have filed W.P. Nos. The initiation of action under the provisions of Sections 4(1) and 5-A and 6 notification under the Act and award proceedings and even the other proceedings under the Act were all processed with Smt.Vasantha Durai. The said Smt.Vasantha Durai and her relatives seem to have filed W.P. Nos. 4170, 3928 to 3931, 4188 and 4201 of 1984 and those writ petitions were dismissed and thereafter, filed another writ petition in W.P.No.1812 of 1993 and after dismissal of the said W.P.No.1812 of 1993, they have preferred Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 4044 of 2003 and the same was finally disposed of on 17.8.2006 by dismissing the claim of Smt.Vasantha Durai and other relatives of the said Smt.Vasantha Durai in respect of the lands in S.Nos.147/7, 148/9 and other survey numbers about the proprietary of land acquisition proceedings and thereafter, the respondents remained silent for about two years and the respondents 1 to 3 through their subordinates, disturbed the peaceful possession of the land in S.No.147/7 to the extent of 69 cents and an extent of 62 cents in S. No: 148/9 at Chembarambakkam Village held by the petitioners 1 to 6. 3. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that while replying to the petitioners' application under Right to Information Act by the first respondent, the first respondent categorically answered that no documents claiming ownership and title of the land in Survey No.148/7, 148/9 were produced during Section 5-A inquiry held by the first respondent. The land bearing Survey Nos. 148/7, 148/9 to the extent of 1 acre and 31 cents at Chembarambakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Poonamallee Circle, Thiruvallur District was originally belonging to one Ellakka @ Muniammal, W/o Kullan, vide sale deed in the year 1928. The said Ellakka @ Muniammal has four sons, namely Ekambaram, Chinnathambi, Deva and Sivalingam. The said sons seem to have mortgaged the land in S.No.148/7 to the extent of 69 cents with one Visalakshi, W/o Thulasingam and the said Ellakka @ Muniammal redeemed the same and sold it to Ekambaram who is none other than her son on 6.5.1957, by a registered sale deed bearing Document No.27858 of 1957. The said sons seem to have mortgaged the land in S.No.148/7 to the extent of 69 cents with one Visalakshi, W/o Thulasingam and the said Ellakka @ Muniammal redeemed the same and sold it to Ekambaram who is none other than her son on 6.5.1957, by a registered sale deed bearing Document No.27858 of 1957. In 1960, the said Ekambaram mortgaged the land in Survey No.148/7 to the extent of 69 cents for a sum of Rs.100/- to Mr.Vadivel Mudaliar and subsequently also redeemed, but there was no cancellation of the said mortgage deed through which the said Smt.Vasantha Durai and her relatives claim right over the said lands. In 1965, the brothers of Mr.Ekambaram namely Chinnathambi, Devan, Sivalingam, jointly executed a release deed in favour of Mr.Ekambaram in respect of the lands in S.No.147/7 to the extent of 69 cents and S.No.147/9 to the extent of 62 cents and thereafter, Mr.Ekambaram who is the father of petitioner Nos.3 to 6 became an absolute sole owner of the said lands. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in 1995, Mr.Ekambaram executed a settlement deed in favour of his children. The petitioners 3 to 6 are the sons of the said Ekambaram who derived the title of the disputed lands through settlement deed executed by the said Ekambaram in 1995. The first respondent inadvertently included the property belonging to the petitioners 3 to 6 for land acquisition proceedings and after realising the fact that the petitioners 3 to 6 were belonging to Schedule Caste community, deliberately shown Smt.Vasanthammal Durai as owner of the property without any title, document or evidence to have acquired the land. 5. The petitioners challenge the impugned order on the ground that the entire process of Section 4(1) notification, dated 4.1.1984 and final process of Section 6 declaration under the Act, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and hence, liable to be quashed. The respondents who were with the Revenue records about the ownership of the lands, deliberately termed one Mrs.Vasantha Durai as the owner and mechanically passed the notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 declaration and acquired the lands belonging to the petitioners. The SLR records maintained by the office of the respondents, clearly speak about the ownership of the lands. The respondents who were with the Revenue records about the ownership of the lands, deliberately termed one Mrs.Vasantha Durai as the owner and mechanically passed the notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 declaration and acquired the lands belonging to the petitioners. The SLR records maintained by the office of the respondents, clearly speak about the ownership of the lands. If the respondents have given opportunity to the said Ekambaram under Sections 4(1) and 5-A of the Act, he would have legally objected for acquisition of the lands on the ground that he is belonging to Schedule Caste community and the Act is not applicable to the lands belonging to the Schedule Caste community people, as per Government G.O.No.2078, Revenue Department, dated 27.12.1984. The right of hearing was denied by the respondents since the petitioners belong to Schedule Caste community, which is illegal. The wrong title conferred on Smt.Vasantha Durai, could be presumed, as there was no document or title deed during Section 5-A enquiry. The respondents mechanically went on with the proceedings and they neither insisted for production of documents for proving the claimant's title, nor verified the relevant records and allowed the third party to claim the amount of compensation. The entire acquisition proceedings by the respondents are against the constitutional right available to the petitioners under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Since civil suits were filed by the petitioners, the respondents may be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the disputed lands. The respondents showed irrelevant third party as owner of the lands contrary to the fact that the petitioners are owners and claimed possession in W.P.Nos.4170, 3928 to 3931, 4188 and 4201 of 1984 and W.A.No.4044 of 2003 and there was only paper possession. The first and second petitioners received title deeds from the Sub-Registrar Office after local inspection and it is apparently clear that the petitioners are in possession of lands. 6. The first and second petitioners received title deeds from the Sub-Registrar Office after local inspection and it is apparently clear that the petitioners are in possession of lands. 6. The 1st respondent herein, who is the Special Tahsildar of the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Sriperumbudur Taluk, has filed a counter affidavit, stating as follows : (a) An extent of 4.06 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos: 148/4, 7, 8, 9, 151/12, 14 classified as dry lands located in Village No: 65, Chembarambakkam Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, then Chenagalpattu District now under Kancheepuram District is proposed for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1984 for providing house site to the poor Adi Dravidars of Chembarambakkam Village. Further, the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No: 3089 Social Welfare dated 28.12.1983 has approved the notification under sub section (1) of Section 4 and the notification has been published in the Tamil Nadu Gazettee dated 04.01.1984 as well as in the Daily newspaper and further 5A enquiry has been duly conducted by issuing notice to the parties and it has been completed on 15.02.1984 and all the usual formalities prescribed under the Act were duly adhered and resorted to as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. He would further state that the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the draft direction under Section 7 of the Act were approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No: 1011, Social Welfare Department dated 10.03.1984 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazettee dated 13.03.1984. Subsequently, the award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 29.03.1984. The first respondent would further state that at this position of acquisition, W.P. Nos: 3928 of 1984, etc., came to be filed before this Hon'ble Court in which the correctness of the communication of the award and dispossession of the land of the petitioners pursuant to the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were questioned. The writ petitions filed by the land owners are listed below : T.V. Amsalingam ) W.P. No: 4170 of 1984 T.V. Subramani ) T.V. Ganesan ) T.V. Sundaramoorthy ) Tmt. The writ petitions filed by the land owners are listed below : T.V. Amsalingam ) W.P. No: 4170 of 1984 T.V. Subramani ) T.V. Ganesan ) T.V. Sundaramoorthy ) Tmt. Vasantha Durai ) T.D. Ramamooorthy W.P. No: 3928 of 1984 A. Sagadevan W.P. No: 3929 of 1984 T.A. Natarajan W.P. No: 3930 of 1984 T.R. Rajabadhar W.P. No: 3931 of 1984 N.R. Balasubramanian W.P. No: 4188 of 1984 K.P. Natarajapillai W.P. No: 4201 of 1984 T.V. Amsalingam ) W.P. No: 1812 of 1993 & T.V. Subramani ) W.M.P. No: 2852 of 1993 & T.V. Ganesan ) W.M.P. No: 23699 of 1994 T.V. Sundaramoorthy ) Tmt. Vasantha Durai ) T.V. Amsalingam ) W.A. No: 309 of 1995 & T.V. Subramani ) C.M.P. No: 5243 of 1995 T.V. Ganesan ) T.V. Sundaramoorthy ) Tmt. Vasantha Durai ) T.D. Ramamooorthy W.P. No: 5867 of 1995 N.R. Balasubramanian W.P. No: 5868 of 1995 T.R. Rajabadhar W.P. No: 5869 of 1995 T.A. Natarajan W.P. No: 5870 of 1995 A. Sagadevan W.P. No: 5871 of 1995 (b) Upon considering the above writ petitions, this Court has held that the petitioners therein were only Agreement Holders of the acquired land and hence the writ petitions were dismissed and in W.P.Nos: 4170 of 1984, 3929 to 3931 of 1984, 4188 of 1984 and 4201 of 1984 it was further directed to issue notice to the individuals under Section 9 (3) and Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and to conduct enquiry and pay the award to the persons who were really entitled as per the rules and regulations. In compliance and adhering to the aforesaid order, notice has been issued to the petitioner in W.P.Nos: 4170 of 1984, 3929 to 3931 of 1984, 4188 of 1984 and 4201 of 1984 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and the Award has been passed on 29.03.1984 for a sum of Rs. 47,348/- and this amount was remitted to the Sub Treasury of Sriperumbudur under the Revenue Deposit in Challan No: Nil dated 31.03.1986 for the reason that no documents pertaining to the title of the acquired lands were produced before the officials for perusal. It is also stated that these facts were not brought to the notice of this Court while hearing the case in W.P. No: 4170 of 1984 and other writ petitions in this regard. Further, symbolic possession of the petition property was taken on 12.01.1993. It is also stated that these facts were not brought to the notice of this Court while hearing the case in W.P. No: 4170 of 1984 and other writ petitions in this regard. Further, symbolic possession of the petition property was taken on 12.01.1993. At this juncture, one T.V. Amsalingam and other have again approached this Hon'ble Court and obtained interim injunction in W.M.P. No: 2852 of 1993 and W.M.P. No: 23699 of 1994 in W.P.No: 1812 of 1993 which was subsequently vacated. (c) Aggrieved by the order made in W.P. No: 1812 of 1993, petitioners therein filed an appeal in W.A. No: 309 of 1995 which was also dismissed as unsustainable and devoid of merits by an order dated 25.01.1995. Thereafter, T.D.Ramamoorthy and 4 others have filed another batch of writ petitions in W.P. Nos: 5867 to 5871 of 1995 and though there were interim direction pending adjudication, ultimately these writ petitions were dismissed by this Court by an order dt. 26.03.1999 holding that the petitioners are agreement holders and that the owners whose names were found in the Revenue Records alone are entitled to be served with a notice under the Land Acquisition Act,1984. It is very pertinent to state here that the award has been passed since prior to the date of the first writ petition in W.P. No: 4170 of 1984 on 18.04.1984 and hence, the question of conducting fresh enquiry would not arise. The 1st respondent would submit that all the proceedings were conducted as per the rules and in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and the symbolic possession has been taken on 13.01.1993 and unwantonly, now P. Sundar and 5 others have approached this Hon'ble Court with the present writ petition to prolong the acquisition endlessly. It is more appropriate to state that the lands comprised in S. Nos: 148/7 and 148/9 were originally belonging to one Mr. Durai son of Late Vadivel Mudaliar registered under Patta No; 261 and after his demise the property devolves upon his legal heir viz. his wife Tmt. Vasanthammal. The aforesaid Vasanthammal had submitted a written statement to pay the compensation amount pertaining to the property in S. No: 148/7 to T.V.Amsalingam, son of Late Vadivel Mudaliar and the award amount pertaining to the property to S. No: 148/9 belongs to Tmt. his wife Tmt. Vasanthammal. The aforesaid Vasanthammal had submitted a written statement to pay the compensation amount pertaining to the property in S. No: 148/7 to T.V.Amsalingam, son of Late Vadivel Mudaliar and the award amount pertaining to the property to S. No: 148/9 belongs to Tmt. Vasanthammal wife of Durai and to T.V. Amsalingam, T.V. Subramani, T.V. Ganesan and T.V. Sundaramoorthy – sons of Late Vadivel Mudaliar who were joint pattadars and everyone is entitled in the land comprised in S. No: 148/9. It is further submitted that they have no objection to pay the compensation amount pertaining to the property comprised in S. No: 148/7. It is submitted that suppressing the above material facts the petitioners herein have filed the above writ petition and hence it is liable to be dismissed. (d) The petitioners were not the owners of the property comprised in S.Nos: 148/7 and 148/9 and their names were not found in the land revenue records. It is submitted that since an application was made under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Land Acquisition Officer had furnished a copy of the records pertaining to the suit property to the petitioners herein. It is stated that all the writ petitions filed by the original owners and others in earlier occasions were ultimately dismissed by this Court with certain directions and such directions were duly complied with and action has been taken to proceed further in accordance with the acquisition proceedings and that there is no procedural defect or irregularity. It is submitted that since the parties claiming ownership to the land have not produced any clinching material and documentary evidence to prove their ownership to the land like sale deeds, patta and other documents, at the time of award enquiry, for want of proof of ownership the compensation was kept in revenue deposit and not otherwise and that if the petitioners are interested in getting their compensation they are at liberty to prove their ownership before the concerned authority and very well they can get their compensation. (e) Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1984 have been taken based on the Revenue Records available for perusal alone and as per the records the land stands registered under Patta No: 261 in the name of Mr.Durai son of Late Vadivel Mudaliar and if the petitioners have a valid title over the property in S. Nos: 148/7 and 148/9 before passing the award, they may produce such material documentary evidence to appropriate authorities and can avail the compensation amount. As the petitioners themselves have stated that they have filed some civil suit as against the respondents herein and such being the fact, this writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Heard Mr. G.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the first limb of his submissions, would contend that in view of the settled legal position after passing of an award in land acquisition proceedings, questioning the same in a writ petition is not permissible. Therefore, the learned counsel is not raising that issue. However, in the second limb of his submissions, the learned counsel raises a question that even assuming that the writ petition is not maintainable, the petitioners being subsequent purchasers, cannot be left out without any payment of compensation since they are persons who step into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and who are entitled to the compensation and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners has to be considered in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 ( II ) C.T.C. 60 [U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and another vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. Lunknow, and another]. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder : " 4. The next question is : whether the respondent is entitled to compensation and, if so, from what date and at what rate ? The original owner has the right to the compensation under Section 23 91) of the Act. Consequently, though the respondent acquired no title to the land, at best he would be entitled to step into the shoes of the owner and claim payment of the compensation, but according to the provisions of the Act. The original owner has the right to the compensation under Section 23 91) of the Act. Consequently, though the respondent acquired no title to the land, at best he would be entitled to step into the shoes of the owner and claim payment of the compensation, but according to the provisions of the Act. It is settled law that the price prevailing as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) is the price to which the owner or person who has an interest in the land is entitled to. Therefore the purchaser as a person interested in the compensation, since he steps into the shoes of erstwhile owner, is entitled to claim compensation. " 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the stage after the passing of the award is not available to any person - in view of the repeated rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - and this Court and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He would further contend that the petitioners are only subsequent purchasers, who have knowledge of acquisition proceedings and hence, they cannot go in for re-claiming possession of the land and on that basis they cannot also claim compensation. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners in this writ petition is not in accordance with law. 10. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the lands in Survey No: 148/7 to an extent of 69 cents and in Survey No: 48/9, to an extent of 62 cents were acquired by the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act after following the procedure contemplated under law. When there was time to lay boundary, the subordinate officials of the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that their lands were acquired under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Thereafter, the petitioners sent a legal notice to the respondents on 31.07.2008 and also made an application on 08.08.2008 and demanded copies of the relevant documents, but the same were not obtained from the officials of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners sent a legal notice to the respondents on 31.07.2008 and also made an application on 08.08.2008 and demanded copies of the relevant documents, but the same were not obtained from the officials of the 1st respondent. It is also seen that an enquiry under Section 5 A of the Act was conducted and then thereafter Section 6 declaration was issued and award proceedings were passed. One Smt. Vasantha, wife of. Durai Murugan claiming to be the owner of the lands filed writ petitions, which were dismissed and another writ petition was filed in W.P. No: 1812 of 1993 and after its dismissal, the petitioners preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No: 4044 of 2003 and the said writ appeal was disposed of on 17.08.2006. At that stage, claiming that they are subsequent purchasers, the petitioners along with the land owners, moved this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings made under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 12. To examine the claim of the petitioners and their right to challenge the above proceedings, the legal position well settled by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in various decisions including the ones reported in (i) A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 671 [Municipal Council, Ahmednagar, vs. Shah Hyder Beig] and (ii) 2003 (4) S.C.C. 485 [Tej Kaur vs. State of Punjab] as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (2) M.L.J. 918 [Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tatabad, Coimbatore, vs. Girija Janarathanan and others] is that pursuant to the passing of the award in Land Acquisition proceedings, a writ will not lie before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the scope of entertaining a writ petition with regard to the matters, wherein awards are passed pursuant to the acquisition of lands by the authorities, will not arise. Since the petitioners itself are not raising the issue, there is no need to examine that question. 13. As regards the question of claim made by the subsequent purchasers, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam's case cited supra, would squarely apply to the case on hand. Since the petitioners itself are not raising the issue, there is no need to examine that question. 13. As regards the question of claim made by the subsequent purchasers, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam's case cited supra, would squarely apply to the case on hand. It is a settled law that the price prevailing as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) is the price to which the owner or person who has an interest in the land is entitled to. Therefore, the subsequent purchaser as a person interested in the compensation, since he steps into the shoes of the erstwhile owner, is entitled to claim compensation. Thus the petitioners have a right to claim compensation. As the respondents have acquired the title and possession, the petitioners, at best can claim compensation on the basis of their purchase. Therefore, their claim for compensation has to be considered in the light of the law laid down by the Courts in the various decisions cited supra. Accordingly, the claim of compensation in respect of petitioners has to be considered by the competent authority. Hence, petitioners are directed to adjudicate their claim before the concerned authority in respect of the compensation for their lands which they purchased after initiation of the acquisition proceedings. 14. Though the claim of the petitioners is disputed by the respondents to the extent that they are subsequent purchasers, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are directed to approach the competent authority with the relevant documents in respect of their claim for compensation and the respondents, in turn, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The 4th respondent is the President of Chembarambakkam Village Panchayat and he claims to be representing the landless Adi Dravidars living in Chembarambakkam Panchayat. In my considered opinion, the 4th respondent/impleaded respondent cannot stake his claim in this writ petition and it is only appropriate that he works out his case before the authority concerned in respect of his grievance, if any. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.