JUDGMENT : (VIJU ABRAHAM, J.) Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts.P17 to P32 awards passed by the 3 rd respondent. Aggrieved by the loss and damages caused due to the drawing of Tenkasi-Edamon 400 KV electric line through the property of the petitioners, they have approached the District Court by filing OP(Electricity),copies of which are produced Exts.P1 to P16. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the 3 rd respondent and in the Adalat Exts.P17 to P32 awards were passed. Exts.P17 to P32 awards were passed as early as in August 2014. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that while passing Exts.P17 to P32 awards neither the DVS nor any of the documents relied on by the respondents to reach the initial compensation was brought on record. It is on the said ground the present writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P17 to P32 awards. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Power Grid Corporation brought to my notice the judgment in OP(C)No.941 of 2017 and connected cases wherein the award of the Lok Adalat in similar circumstances were challenged and this Court rejected the challenge against the awards as per the judgment dated 24.03.2017, paragraph 4 of which reads as follows: “4. The award passed by the Legal Services Authority is in a printed form. It is not known any deliberation has taken place with regard to the claim made by the petitioners. In some of the cases, signatures were not there. However, admittedly,-in all the cases, the petitioners have received compensation. The award is passed based on a settlement. If the settlement is vitiated for any known reason under law, it is Open for the parties to challenge it before this court, notwithstanding the fact that the award is final and no appeal would lie against the award in terms of Section 21 of the Act 39 of 1987. The delay and laches in challenging the award certainly would bar a remedy even if there are sustainable grounds to challenge the award. The petitioners were paid compensation immediately after the award was passed. They were represented by a lawyer. After accepting the compensation, the petitioners cannot be heard to say at this distance of time that the award is vitiated. The petitioners were paid compensation immediately after the award was passed. They were represented by a lawyer. After accepting the compensation, the petitioners cannot be heard to say at this distance of time that the award is vitiated. Assuming that the award is not in conformity with the Legal Services Authority Act and Regulation, nevertheless, acceptance of compensation is a hurdle for the petitioners in making a challenge to the award. This court in Honble Supreme Court in Catena of decisions held that thought there is no prescription of limitation to invoke remedy under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, the aggrieved should approach the court within a reasonable time. In all these cases,the parties have approached this court after a lapse of at least five years. In such circumstances,these original petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Therefore,I do so, accordingly all original petitions are dismissed in limine.” The court in the said cases held that there is serious delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in challenging the award and further that after accepting the compensation the petitioners cannot be heard to say at this distance of time that the award is vitiated. Relying on the said judgment of this Court in OP(C) No.941 of 2017 and connected cases repelled similar challenge against the award as per judgment dated 10.04.2025 in WP(C) No.16284 of 2019. Admittedly, the impugned awards were passed as early as in 2014, and the challenge to the same is made only in 2020. Further, the awards were passed based on the settlement and the petitioners received compensation amount also. Taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances and also the dismissal of similar original petitions and writ petitions as stated above, and taking into consideration the delay and laches in challenging the award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.