Judgment :- S. RAMALINGAM, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 7-8-1989 in W.M.P. 11211 and 14045 in W.P. 7879 of 1989 which reads as follows— “A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent in which it has been clearly stated that possession has already been taken on 28-11-86, and that the 4th respondent is in possession. In view of this, I do not find any reason to continue the injunction, Accordingly the injunction granted earlier, will stand vacated”. 2. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent in the writ petition, it is stated that declaration under S. 6 was issued on 6-7-1982 and the award enquiry was conducted after notice to the petitioners on 28-8-1986 and award was on 22-9-1986 and possession was taken on 28-11-1986 itself. In paragraph 7 of the same counter affidavit, it is stated that after possession was taken on 28-11-1986 the lands were laid out into plots for the construction of 24 H.I.G; houses and lay out was also duly approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Madras. In view of the clear statement contened in the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge and accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed, 3. When the writ appeal came up for hearing, we found that apart from W.P. 7879 of 1989 there were also a few other writ petitions filed challenging the validity of GOMs. No. 918 Housing and Urban development dated 17th July, 1980. Hence with the consent of parties, the following writ petitions were clubbed together and were posted for hearing along with the writ appeal;— W.P. Nos. 7318, 8851 and 8852 of 1984; 9364, 10167 and 13851 of 1986 and 7979 of 1989; 4. The case of the petitioners is as follows:— By G.O.Ms. No. 918. Housing and Urban Development dated 17-7-1980 notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) was issued proposing to acquire the lands situated in R.S. Nos. 1244/1, 1444/2-A and 1247 etc., to the extent of 32.94.16 Hectares in Kollampalayam, Erode, village. The case of the petitioners is as follows:— By G.O.Ms. No. 918. Housing and Urban Development dated 17-7-1980 notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) was issued proposing to acquire the lands situated in R.S. Nos. 1244/1, 1444/2-A and 1247 etc., to the extent of 32.94.16 Hectares in Kollampalayam, Erode, village. After following the procedure prescribed for publication of the substance of the notification in the locality, including service of notice on t he petitioners, an enquiry was conducted under S. 5(A) of the Act in which objections were filed by the petitioners. The objections were considered in the light of the remarks made by the requisitioning body and the Government issued a declaration under S. 6 of the Act on 6th July, 1982 in G.O.Ms. No. 557, Housing and Urban Development. Thereafter, award enquiry was conducted under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act on 28-8-1986. Award was passed on 22 9-1986. The Government having taken possession of the lands pursuant to the Award the Special Revenue Inspector handed over possession to the fourth respondent (Tamil Nadu Housing Board,) on 28-11-1986 itself. 5. While challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings, the petitioner contends that an extent of about 11 acres of lands in R.S. 1244/1 belonging to one Avinashi Gounder was also notified for acquisition under the same notification. He requested the Government to exclude his lands from acquisition on the ground that he is going to construct an English Medium School. This was recommended by the then Executive Engineer, by name, Ramaswami, who, the petitioners claim, is a close relation of Avinashi Gounder. According to the petitioner, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Exclusive Engineer and excluded the lands of Avinashi Gounder from acquisition. The said Avinashi Gounder, instead of using the land for the purposes of construction of a school divided the land into different plots and sold the same to third parties. The petitioners submit that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated by mala fides for the foregoing reason. 6. One other contention urged by the petitioners is that in W.P. 7780 of 1981 filed by a few of the owners of the land under acquisition, of a total extent of 18 acres, this court allowed the writ petition for failure to follow the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed under the Act. 6. One other contention urged by the petitioners is that in W.P. 7780 of 1981 filed by a few of the owners of the land under acquisition, of a total extent of 18 acres, this court allowed the writ petition for failure to follow the provisions of Rule 3(b) of the Rules framed under the Act. This petitioners, therefore, submit that, if a large extent of land viz., 11 acres belonging to Avinashi Gounder and about 18 acres belonging to the petitioner in W.P. 7780 of 1981, thus stood excluded from acquisition then the very scheme under which the 4th respondent, the Housing Board, desires these lands to be acquired for a comprehensive scheme would stand nullified because the scheme has lost its cohesion. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed in these batch of writ petitions by the said Ramaswami, Executive Engineer, and he denies the allegations levelled against him that he engineered the exclusion of the lands belonging to Avinashi Gounder. He states that on a request made by the said Avinashi Gounder for exclusion of his land, from acquisition the Chairman of the Housing Board, himself made a personal inspection and thereafter the Housing Board passed a Resolution No416 dated 27-2-1979 deleting the lands of Avinashi Gounder. He further states that at that time there was only a proposal to acquire the lands and not even a Notification under S. 4(1) of the Act. He states that the Executive Engineer has no power to exclude any land from acquisition proposal by the Housing Board. 8. The averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer would clearly show that exclusion of the lands belonging to Avinashi Gounder was not due to the alleged influence exercised by the Executive Engineer. There is nothing mala fide on the part of the Executive Engineer, as alleged against him. Further, if Avinashi Gounder had divided the lands into plots and sold them as house sites, that would not in any manner vitiate the Notification issued under S. 4(1) of the Act to ac quire the lands belonging to petitioners. There fore, it follows that the allegation of petitioners that the exclusion of the lands belonging to Avinashi Gounder was due to the mala fide action of the Executive Engineer is not correct. There fore, it follows that the allegation of petitioners that the exclusion of the lands belonging to Avinashi Gounder was due to the mala fide action of the Executive Engineer is not correct. The fact that Avinashi Gounder had sold the lands, so excluded, to third parties would not have any bearing to vitiate the present acquisition proceedings. 9. For the purpose of appreciating the second contention of the petitioners a look at the plan submitted by the respective parties covering the area of the land under acquisition and also the lands, which were excluded, became necessary and on a consideration of the same we hold that the cohesion of the scheme area has not been affected by the exclusion of an extent of 11 acres of lands belonging to Avinashi Gounder or about 18 acres of land belonging to the petitioners in W.P. 7780 of 1981. Even after the exclusion of these peripheral lands, a large extent of land is available for putting up houses to implement the housing scheme. In fact, it is seen that the land, which has been taken possession of in the year 1986, has been plotted out into different sites for the purpose of putting up houses. It is also seen that in order to provide water supply arrangements to this scheme area tenders have been called for on 31-5-1989. Borewill was dug costing Rs. 35.000, and equipments were also provided. Therefore, it is obvious that the scheme for which the acquisition was devised is not in any manner scuttled by the exclusion of the lands belonging to Avinashi Gounder and the petitioners in W.P. 7780 of 1981. Thus, both the points urged by the petitioners fail. No other point is urged in these writ petitions. Hence all the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs, both in the writ appeal as well as in the writ petitions.