1.1. The petitioners are the heirs of certain Arul, who owned a piece of property in Survey No.52/69 measuring 1800 sq.ft. in Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. This was sought to be acquired for the purpose of formation of an Industrial Estate by the fourth respondent and a notice under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (T.N Act 10 of 1999) was issued. This was followed by a notification under Section 3(1) of the said Act and the same was gazetted on 04.07.2007, where in petitioner's father Arul was shown to be the owner of the aforesaid property. However, by the time the notice under Section 3(2) of the Act was issued, Arul had passed away. This was followed by a notice dated 18.05.2007 came to be issued to the third petitioner to appear before the third respondent for the enquiry on 25.05.2007 along with the title documents, layout, plan approval etc.,

1.2. On 25.05.2007, the third petitioner appeared before the third respondent and she was forced to agree to the amount mentioned by the third respondent as compensation. The third petitioner however did not consent to this idea, and has submitted before the third respondent that the petitioners would file their written objections. Thereafter, further notices were issued to the petitioners, to which they have sent their replies dated 09.7.2007, 22.04.2008 and 18.02.2009. In the last of the response that the petitioners had sent, it was made known to the Land Acquisition Authority that they were not in a mood to accept the amount proposed. This was in response to the notice dated 02.2.2009 issued by the third respondent. On 18.02.2009, the first petitioner appeared before the third respondent and the third respondent persisted with the earlier contact and insisted the petitioner to accept the compensation amount.

1.3. To the knowledge of the petitioners, no award was passed in terms of the Section 7(3) of the Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, consistent with Section 7(5) and Section 7(6) of the Act thereto. Thereafter, the third respondent/Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) informed the petitioners that the compensation amount was fixed at Rs.1,52,500/- by the District Collector and an award was passed before the Lok Adalat. However, the petitioners have not participated in any such Lok Adalat and no copy of the said award too was furnished to the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter attempted to gather information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, and being tormented for a while they were informed that an award was passed on 02.02.2011. This was a news to the petitioner. Alleging that the petitioners were not served with proper notices under Section 3(2) of the Act and no notice before passing the award was served under Section 7(3) of the Act, the petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings.

2. The second respondent has filed counters: On the point of issuance of notice under Section 3(2) of the Act is concerned, it was conceded in the counter that objections of the petitioners were received and on the point of determination of compensation under Section 7(3) of the Act, it is alleged that the award was passed on 02.2.2007.

3. Heard Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

4. The learned Government Advocate placed before this Court the entire files pertaining to acquisition. In the context of the present case, given the sequence of correspondences/representations of the petitioners to the second respondent, it could be gathered that the petitioners were not against acquisition, and hence it has to be held that this Court cannot quash the notification issued under Section 3(1) at this belated hour. In fact, it has come out in the pleadings that possession too has been taken on 31.07.2007. However, on the point of hearing the petitioners, befo