Due to delayed filing of petition no relief granted.

K.A.Swami, C.J.:

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24. 1995 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1769 of 1996 and W.M.P. Nos.2724 and 2725 of 1996. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated and completed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act XXXI of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) The acquisition proceeding was initiated by publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act on 20.5.1990. The acquisition also came to be finalised by passing the award on 20th March 1981, in award No.5/81-A by the Special Tahsildhar, (HW) Coimbatore.

2. The learned single Judge has declined to exercise his jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of laches, as he come forward with the writ petition only in the year 1996, in respect of the acquisition proceedings, which had became final in the year 1991.

3. The contention put forth before us is that the petitioner could not have approached this Court earlier to the date he has filed the writ petition in the year 1996 because the Act itself was struck down, as being ultra vires of the constitution, by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.757 of 1980 decided on 9. 1981, inasmuch as the Act did not enjoy the protection of Art.31 or 31 -A and that it was violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution. It is relevant to notice that in an appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment in Civil Appeal No.3312 of 1981 dated 211. 1994 reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, A.I.R. 1995 S.C., 2114, the Supreme Court has reversed the judgment of this Court and has held that the Act is intra vires the Constitution except the provisions contained in Sec.11(1) and (2) after the words ‘in a lumpsum’ occurring in Sec. 11(1). The relevant portion of the judgment as contained in Para.20 reads thus:

"...The appeal is allowed part. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. Except for the provisions of Sec. 11(1) of the said Act in so far as they provide for payment of the compensation amount in instalments, the said Act is intra vires the Constitution. Sec. 11(1) is valid only to this extent:

"11. Payment of amount — (1) After the amount has been determined, the prescribed authority shall tender payment of the amount to the persons entitled thereto and shall pay it to them —

(i) in a lump sum"

The rest of Sec.111(1) is ultra vires the constitution".

4. In para 18 of the judgment, extracted below, the Supreme Court saved the acquisition which had taken place under the Land Acquisition Act in which the awards had been passed on or before the date of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

"...Sec.20 of the said Act states that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, save as expressly provided in the said Act, shall cease to apply to any land which is required for the purpose specified in Sec .4(1) and such land shall be acquired only in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Consequently, Sec.22 makes the provisions of the said Act applicable also to cases in which proceedings have been started before the commencement of the said act under the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of Harijan Welfare Scheme, provided that no awards have been made under the Land Acquisition Act. We see no unreasonableness in this provision, particularly having regard to the terms of Sec.20. We must, however taken into account the fact that the judgment under appeal striking down the said Act was delivered as far as back as September 1981, and no stay thereof was obtained from this Court. It is likely, therefore, that in cases where proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had already been started to acquire lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes, they might have been revived and completed in the interregnum. We, therefore, make it clear that the provisions of Sec.22 shall have no effect in suc