Order 1. Writ Petition No.17929 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Public Notice dated 30.07.2010 issued by the respondent in Dhinathanthi dated 06.08.2010 and Award No.4 of 2012 dated 15.05.2012 issued by the respondent and communicated under proceeding bearing Na.Ka.563/2010/A1 dated 15.05.2012 and quash the same. 2. Writ Petition No.17930 of 2012 is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.563/2010/A1 dated 30.07.2011 and Award No.4 of 2012 dated 15.05.2012 passed by the respondent and communicated under bearing Na.Ka.563/2010/A1 dated 15.05.2012 and quash the same. 3. Ms. V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent in both writ petitions. The relief sought for in both the writ petitions is one and the same. By consent both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. 4. Both the petitioners claim to be the owners of the property in both the writ petitions. They challenged the notice issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2011 (Act 34 of 2002) and the Award No.4 of 2012 passed on 15.5.2012 and the consequential proceedings. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent at the outset objected to the filing of the writ petitions challenging the Section 15(2) notice as well as the Award No.4 of 2012 dated 15.5.2012 stating that the petitioners have come to this court belatedly and the writ petitions should not be entertained. In support of this plea, the learned Special Government Pleader relied upon various proceedings in which the petitioners had participated. Therefore, it is not correct to challenge the same at this point of time. 6. The objection raised by the Special Government Pleader is justified for the following reasons: (1) In both the cases, the lands were sought to be acquired by the State Highways. The notice under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu State High Ways Act, 2001 was issued on 30.7.2010. Thereafter, the Gazette Notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was published and after following the procedure prescribed, an Award came to be passed in Award No.4 of 2012 on 15.5.2012. The notice under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu State High Ways Act, 2001 was issued on 30.7.2010. Thereafter, the Gazette Notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was published and after following the procedure prescribed, an Award came to be passed in Award No.4 of 2012 on 15.5.2012. Thereafter, for determining compensation payable for the lands acquired, proceedings under Section 19 of the Act were initiated and notice was issued at the first instance in the month of October, 2011 for surrender of the land for the purpose of Highways Project. Thereafter, on 27.10.2011, notice was issued to Ekambaram, son of Govinda Chetty to appear in the enquiry to be held on 14.11.2011 at 3.00 pm and conducted by the District Revenue Officer, at the office of the District Collector so as to determine the value of the land for the purpose of granting compensation. This notice was issued in terms of Section 19(2) and 19(3) for enquiry. (2) Thiru Ekambaram has given his objection on 25.08.2010 to the notice under Section 15(2). Insofar as Subburajan is concerned it is stated that he objected to the notice under Section 15(2) by his objection dated 17.8.2010. But, they however, did not pursue the matter thereafter. (3) The competent authority thereafter issued notice for surrender of the property and notice in terms of Section 19(2) and (3) was issued on 27.10.2011 for which the petitioner Subburajan submitted his objection on 14.11.2011 that is the date of so-called hearing at 3.00 pm before the District Revenue Officer. (4) Further notice was issued on 29.3.2012 in terms of Section 19(5) and 19(7) for enquiry on 12.4.2012 at 11.00 am before the District Revenue Officer. (5) According to the petitioner Subburajan, his son Selvamani participated in the enquiry and gave his objections with regard to the value by specifying that the value of the land which is subject matter of acquisition should be fixed at Rs.45,000/- per square feet. (6) Thereafter, on 15.5.2012 taking note of all the objections given by the various persons, the District Collector determined the compensation and passed the Award No.4 of 2012 and that has been communicated to the individuals specifying the amount determined in favour of each one of the land owners. (6) Thereafter, on 15.5.2012 taking note of all the objections given by the various persons, the District Collector determined the compensation and passed the Award No.4 of 2012 and that has been communicated to the individuals specifying the amount determined in favour of each one of the land owners. (7) At this point of time, the writ petitions have been filed challenging the Section 15(1) notice, the Award and the consequential proceedings which is an afterthought and hit by delay and laches. (8) The petitioners who are aware of the acquisition proceedings and having objected to the Section 15(2) notice have abandoned their claim insofar as the acquisition is concerned at the earliest point of time. (9) Insofar as the compensation is concerned, this court is unable to find any error in the proceedings of the respondent as is evident from the records produced by the petitioners themselves which clearly go to show that the procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Act for determination of the amount consequent to acquisition has been done after following the procedure prescribed. Notice to appear for personal enquiry was served on both the land owners and after receiving the notice one of them gave their objections in writing. Based on the material produced, the Collector had determined the compensation amount and passed the award. This Court is unable to find any error of law or procedure as alleged by the two petitioners in their writ petitions. There is nothing to show that the proceedings were arbitrary and unreasonable. The procedure prescribed has been followed. (11) The plea, that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given, made in ground (b), is not supported by material records. On the contrary, the objection letter dated 14.11.2011 clearly shows that the petitioner Subburajan did appear in the enquiry and submitted his objections. It is for the petitioners to give all relevant materials at the time of enquiry in support of the claim for compensation and if the award passed by the District Collector is not in consonance with the materials submitted by the petitioners, there is a remedy under Section 20 to the person aggrieved. (12) Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 reads as follows:- “20. (12) Section 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 reads as follows:- “20. (1) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, or the officer to whom the case was transferred, determining the amount may, within sixty days from the date of such decision, in so far as it affects him, by application to the Collector or the officer to whom the case was transferred, require that the matter be referred by him for the determination of the Court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and when any such application is made, the provisions of part III of the said Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to further proceedings in respect thereof.” Therefore, petitioners should have challenged the award before the appropriate forum after passing of the award by the Collector in terms of Section 19 of the Act. This court is unable to find any infirmity so as to interfere with the same on merits. 7. At this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for suitable direction to permit the petitioners to approach the Reference Court and plead that the time limit fixed under the statute may be relaxed by excluding the period during which the writ petitions were pending. 8. The Award No.4 of 2012 in this case was passed on 15.5.2012. Petitioners have challenged the proceedings dated 30.7.2010, 30.7.2011 and the Award dated 15.5.2012 before this court by filing the writ petitions on 26.6.2012. Petitioners should have approached the Collector by way of application to refer the matter to the competent civil court. However, they have challenged the acquisition proceedings in its entirety and are before this Court. They objection raised by the Special Government Pleader is acceptable. 9. In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to approach the District Collector with a request for referring the matter to the competent civil court along with a copy of this order. As and when such request is made, the District Collector is directed to refer the matter to the competent civil court. The period of 60 days for approaching the reference court will not apply as the writ petitions have been filed before this court well within 60 days from the date of communication. Since the writ petitions have been filed on 26.6.2012, the plea of limitation can be eschewed. The period of 60 days for approaching the reference court will not apply as the writ petitions have been filed before this court well within 60 days from the date of communication. Since the writ petitions have been filed on 26.6.2012, the plea of limitation can be eschewed. The petitioners shall submit their application within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the District Collector for further action as per the Land Acquisition Act. Except giving liberty as above, the main relief sought for in the writ petitions is declined. 10. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.