Nainar Sundaram, J.:

In these two writ appeals, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8507 and 1987 are the appellants. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in two writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per array in the writ petitions. The petitioners are aggrieved over the acquisition proceedings prosecuted under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act proceedings under the Act have come to the stage of passing of awards. However, petitioners wanted to quash the very notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. The single Judge did not countenance the case of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions subject to a direction that in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.8507 of 1987 the reference under Sec.31 of the Act shall be withdrawn, because the petitioner therein alone is to the compensation amount. These two writ appeals are directed against the common of the learned single Judge.

2. Before us, Mr.M.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, put in the forefront two points, coveting interference at our hands. The first point taken that for the making of the awar