Judgment :- ORDER 1. These writ petitions challenge the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act passed in G.O,Ms.248 Housing and Urban Development (U.D.III) dated 09.03.1994. 2. The total extent of land sought to be acquired under the scheme of acquisition is an extent of 14.3 acres. The petitioners are the owners of 2.25 acres. 3. Heard Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.S.Packiaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents. 4. The scheme of acquisition relates to the formation of the inner ring road on the out skirts of Chennai. The same has been effected in three phases. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is three fold. They are as follows: “(1) The notification u/s 4(1) does not disclose the public purpose giving rise to the acquisition. It is therefore vague and bad in law. (2) There is a time lag of beyond 60 days from the date of notification, date of publication in two local news papers and the date of publication in the locality. (3) The publication in newspapers has not been effected in two dailies which are widely in circulation in the locality.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challenge to dismissal of writ petitions successfully was mounted in W.A.Nos.1130 and 1233 to 1244 of 1999, ( 2001 (2) CTC 257 ), wherein under orders dated 23.03.2001, a Division Bench of this court held that notification in G.O.Ms.No.958, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 10.06.1991 interalia was bad on the ground of vagueness. He would contend that the notification presently under challenge also suffered on the same account (i.e) the same was vague and therefore it necessarily would have to meet the same fate. He next would contend that publication in newspapers have been effected in Tamil dailies viz "Adhirstam" and "Kumari Murasu". The same were hardly papers of circulation in the locality. This court under orders in W.P.No.13815 of 1995 dated 25.07.2002, ((2003) 1 M.L.J.378) held that when publication had been made in papers which were of not wide circulation, the same was not sufficient and hence the notification would fail. The appeal against such judgment preferred by the State in W.A.No.3629 of 2004 stood dismissed. This court under orders in W.P.No.13815 of 1995 dated 25.07.2002, ((2003) 1 M.L.J.378) held that when publication had been made in papers which were of not wide circulation, the same was not sufficient and hence the notification would fail. The appeal against such judgment preferred by the State in W.A.No.3629 of 2004 stood dismissed. It is therefore contended that this court would have to follow the earlier decision holding publication in the above said newspapers in the present case, bad in law and consequently hold that G.O.Ms.No.248 stood vitiated. 7. Learned counsel next would contend that G.O.Ms.No.248,H&UD(UD.III) Department, was issued on 09.03.1994. The publication in newspapers had been effected in 'Kumari Murasu" and 'Adhirstam' dated 15.06.1994 and the publication in the locality had been effected on 30.06.1994. As per the decision of Division Bench of this court rendered in W.A.No.946 of 1991 dated 09.12.1991, there should not be a long gap between the date of notification, date of publication in newspapers and the date of publication in the locality. It had been held that if the same was beyond a period of 60 days, it would be open to challenge. Learned counsel would point out that it is in the light of the said decision that amendment stands carried out to section 4 under Tamilnadu Amendment Act 1996, providing that the entire process of issue of notification, publication in newspapers and publication in locality is to be completed within a period of 60 days. Learned counsel would also refer to the decision of Apex court reported in AIR 2007 SC 1151 , Vyalikaval House Building Co-op Society vs. V. Chandrappa and Ors, to inform that when Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act was held to be bad, laches on the part of the parties would not come in the way of their being granted relief. 8. Learned Advocate General, referring to the fact that land acquisition in respect of inner ring road project was effected in three phases, informed that it was G.O.Ms.No.958, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 10.06.1991 which was held to be bad on the ground of vagueness. He would submit that G.O.Ms.No.248 i.e Government Order presently under challenge did not suffer any vagueness. He would submit that G.O.Ms.No.248 i.e Government Order presently under challenge did not suffer any vagueness. As against G.O.Ms.No.958, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 10.06.1991 merely informing that the acquisition was "to wit for land assembly and development project along Inner Ring Road by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority". G.O.Ms.No.248,H&UD (UD.III) Department, dated 09.03.1994, specifically informs "to wit, for development of residential and commercial neighbourhoods on both sides of Inner Ring road to ensure and regulate orderly development by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority under the project known as Land Assembly and Development project along Inner Ring Road." 9. On the question of publication, learned Advocate General would rely on the decision of the Apex court in 2011 1 SCC 330 , Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition C.M.D.A vs J. Sivaprakasam and others wherein it had been observed as follows: “33.As both Madurai Mani and Kadiravan were sold and circulated in Chennai and as a good chunk of their total circulations was in Chennai, it may not be possible to hold that the said newspapers were not `regional daily newspapers circulating in the locality'. Nor will it be possible to invalidate the entire acquisition on the ground that the publication in the said two newspapers did not fulfill requirement of publication in `newspapers circulating in that locality'. But if the respondents are able to assert and demonstrate that as a consequence, they were denied the opportunity of participating in the enquiry under Section 5A, or show any other disadvantage, they may be able to achieve the object of showing that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated in so far as their lands were concerned." Learned Advocate General would point out that petitioners in the writ petitions had participated in the Section 5(A) enquiry and therefore really had suffered no prejudice whatsoever. He would further submit that the publication in the locality had also been done without much delay and the entire acquisition process was well in order and did not provide any room for challenge. 10. Learned Advocate General next would contend that enquiry proceedings had been concluded and an award was passed as early as on 27.06.1997. The petitioner had chosen to challenge the same only in the year 2006. Therefore, the petition would have to be dismissed also on the ground of laches. 10. Learned Advocate General next would contend that enquiry proceedings had been concluded and an award was passed as early as on 27.06.1997. The petitioner had chosen to challenge the same only in the year 2006. Therefore, the petition would have to be dismissed also on the ground of laches. In this regard he would rely on the decision of this court reported in 2005 (3) CTC 1 , Ramalingam and others vs. The State of Tamilnadu rep by Secretary to the Industries Department, which informs that challenges made to acquisition proceedings after passing of the award would not be maintainable before this court. 11. It is impressed upon this court that the entire area surrounding the lands of the petitioners stand acquired without any objection, all such lands have been taken possession of and in reality the petitioners would now have no separate access to their respective properties. The project, which would serve the larger public interest was ready to be implemented and the pendency of the present writ petitions was the only impediment thereto. Informing that private interest would have to give way to larger public interest, he would seek dismissal of the writ petitions. Learned Advocate General placed heavy reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.503 of 2006, S.Kesavan and Another vs. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, MMDA, Chennai & Others. 12. I have considered the rival submissions. In decision of this court in W.A.No.503 of 2006 the distinction between G.O.Ms.No.958, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 10.06.1991, which was invalidated under judgment of this court and the present G.O.Ms.No.248 stands well drawn in the following words: '23.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would urge that similar notification which was the subject matter of the challenge in Writ Appeal Nos.1130 and 1233 to 1244 of 1999 has been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in 2001 (2) CTC page 257 (cited supra) and the challenge made to the said order by way of SLP having been dismissed, the present acquisition proceedings are also liable to be quashed. As already held above, in the above cited decision, the notification read that "To wit for Land Assembly and Development Project along Inner Ring Road by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority". As already held above, in the above cited decision, the notification read that "To wit for Land Assembly and Development Project along Inner Ring Road by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority". A perusal of the 4(1) Notification which is the subject matter of challenge in this proceedings would disclose that the lands in question are sought to be acquired " for development of residential and commercial neighbourhood on both side of the Inner Ring Road"..... Therefore, it cannot be said that the said notification is vague and the appellants having understood the purpose of the acquisition had submitted their objections and also participated in the 5A Enquiry.' 13. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the publication in newspapers had been found wanting in judgments of this court in writ petition as confirmed in W.A.No.3629/2004 and therefore the notification in G.O.Ms.No.248 would have to fail, we find that in dealing with this particular aspect the Division Bench in the decision cited supra has observed as follows: ‘28. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CMDA, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that G.O.Ms.No.248, Housing and Urban Development, (UD-III) dated 9.3.1994, issued for the similar purpose has been quashed by this Court and the judgment reported in 2003 (1) MLJ page 378 - Mrs. Revathy Mohan alias Dhanalakshmi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, on the ground that Rules 4(b) and ) of Land Acquisition Rules have not been followed and the publication has been effected in Tamil Dailies which were not having wider circulation in the locality. While quashing the notification, this Court in the said decision, had granted liberty to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh in terms of the Land Acquisition Rules. 29. It is stated by the Chief Executive Officer of CMDA in the above said affidavit that in respect of land acquisition which was subject matter of the challenge in the above cited decision, CMDA is taking steps through Tahsildar to issue a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. 30. 29. It is stated by the Chief Executive Officer of CMDA in the above said affidavit that in respect of land acquisition which was subject matter of the challenge in the above cited decision, CMDA is taking steps through Tahsildar to issue a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. 30. This Court after taking into consideration the affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA and the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for CMDA and the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, is of the considered opinion that the lands in question along with other acquired lands in Phase-III are going to be utilised for the public purpose to develop Truck Parking Terminal which would ultimately ease the traffic congestion in Chennai City. The said purpose in any event cannot be said as "non-public purpose". Even though similar notification has been quashed by this Court in the judgment reported in 2003(1) MLJ 378 (cited supra), this Court has granted liberty to the Respondents to issue 4(1) notification afresh in terms of Act and Rules and it is averred by the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA in his affidavit that the steps are being taken to issue a fresh Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, the benefit of the above cited decision cannot be extended to the appellants." We are in respectful agreement with the above observations. Dealing with the question of laches, we would have to inform that laches would not stand in the way of the petitioners only if Section 4(1) notification of the Land Acquisition Act, is found to be bad in law. Such is not the case here. In decision of this court in, Ramalingam and others vs. The State of Tamilnadu rep by Secretary to the Industries Department, ( 2005 (3) CTC 1 ), it has been held that challenge after the award would not be maintainable.” 14. We find ourselves in absolute agreement with the submissions of the learned Advocate General that larger public interest would have to prevail over individual rights and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the acquisition proceedings initiated under G.O,Ms.248 Housing and Urban Development (U.D.III) dated 09.03.1994. 15. The writ petitions necessarily would fail. Accordingly, the writ petitions shall stand dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.