Judgment : tedly, it appears that in this matter it is specifically stated and admitted by the writ petitioner/appellant that the award has been passed on 01.11.2007 and possession of the land was taken on 19.11.2007 and in view of that the title dispute with regard to the land of the writ petitioner, the matter was referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and that is the reason, the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging that part of the order issued subsequently by the authorities under Section 4(1) of the Act. It appears that the writ petitioner challenged the proceeding of land acquisition by pointing out that the declaration was published after lapse of draft notification without conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act but it appears that, in this matter, all steps were taken and even, admittedly, the award had been published. The writ petitioner only on 10.06.2009 filed the writ petition before the Court challenging the said action and the process of acquisition made by the authorities, which is two years after the award had been published. 3. In this connection, the respondent has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in SAWARAN LATA v. STATE OF HARYANA ( AIR 2010 SC 1664 ) wherein the Supreme Court after following the decision of the Constitution Bench in [AFLATOON AND OTHERS v. LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI AND OTHERS ( AIR 1974 SC 2077 )] and further decision in [STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS. v. D.R. LAXMI AND OTHERS ( (1996) 6 SCC 445 )] came to the conclusion that '...declaration under Section 6 of Act 1894 had been published in the newspapers having no wide circulation. Even if, the submission made by the petitioners is accepted, it cannot be presumed that they could not be aware of acquisition proceedings for the reason that very huge chunk of land belonging to large number of tenure holders had been notified for acquisition. Therefore, it should have been a talk of the town. Thus, it cannot be presumed that petitioners could not have knowledge of the acquisition proceedings.' 4. Therefore, it should have been a talk of the town. Thus, it cannot be presumed that petitioners could not have knowledge of the acquisition proceedings.' 4. In the instant case, it appears that the writ petitioner had knowledge of issuance of Section 4(1) notification and the steps taken by the authorities and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot, at this stage, turn round and claim that the said process was bad. 5. Similarly, the Supreme Court in SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2008) 4 SCC 695 ) held that '...a writ petition challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed after the possession having been taken, is not maintainable.' [See Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. [ (1996) 11 SCC 501 ]. It further appears that the Supreme Court has stated that the writ petition having been filed after taking over possession and award having become final, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 6. In the instant case, it appears that after publication of the award, the writ petitioner waited for two years to file the writ petition and in our opinion, that certainly attracts the said clause of delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.