Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.600 of 1983. The successor-in-interest of the petitioner in W.P.No.600 1983 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in this writ appeal are respondents in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties per their nomenclature in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner challenged the land acquisition proceedings. The only grievance expressed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned single Judge who heard and disposed of writ petition, was that compliance with Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, would be skipped over taking cover under Explanation to that rule, introduced by G.O.Ms.No,996, Revenue, dated 19.5.1976. We presently look into the scope of the said rule along with the Explanation so as to understand the grievance expressed on behalf of the petitioner. Suffice it to state at this juncture this grievance of the petitioner was not countenanced by the learned single Judge and result the writ petition was dismissed. 3. Before us, the very same grievance is being expressed by Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Rule runs as follows: “Rule 3...... (b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the prescribed in Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land where such department is not the Revenue Department. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry.” As per the language of the said rule, when objections are received from a person interested in the land and within time prescribed under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the Department or Company requiring the land, where such Department is not the Revenue Department. The said further requires that copies of the petition shall be forwarded to such Department Company. The implication of the said rule is that in case where the Department requiring land is the Revenue Department, the above requirements need not be complied with. G.O.Ms.No.996, Revenue, dated 19.5.1976, the following explanation was introduced to 3(b): “Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-rule, the Revenue Department deemed to include the departments of Harijan Welfare and Backward Classes at the level.” The result of the explanation is, that Departments of Harijan Welfare and Backward at the District level will also fall within the Revenue Department for the purpose of (b); and in such a case, the requirements of Rule 3(b) need not be complied with. 4. What was contended before the learned single Judge and which contention again pressed forth before us, is that the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act has been the Social Welfare Department and it must be taken to be the Department requiring and it is not the Revenue Department; and the respondents could not take cover under Explanation which equates only the Departments of Harijan Welfare and Backward as Revenue Department to skip over compliance with Rule 3(b). Of course, this contention has been repelled by the learned single Judge. If in fact the Department requiring the one concerned with administration of the affairs of the Harijan Welfare and Classes or in other words, factually manning or administering the affairs concerning Welfare and Backward Classes, we do not think that we should be tied down prevailing bare nomenclature of the Departments; and we should go only by the aspects of the administration. That should be the legitimate guideline to work out Rule If the Social Welfare Department only is in charge of the affairs of the Harijan Welfare Backward Classes, certainly that alone will be the Department of Harijan Welfare Backward Classes within the meaning of and for the purposes of the Explanation referred above. The specific and categoric stand taken by the respondents, and that is not disputed before us, is that the Social Welfare Department alone manned and administered the affairs of the Harijan Welfare amongst other subjects. Further, when we peruse notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, we find that the acquisition is for Arunthathiars locale and the authorisation has been given to the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar to exercise the powers under the Act. Further, when we peruse notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, we find that the acquisition is for Arunthathiars locale and the authorisation has been given to the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar to exercise the powers under the Act. 5. A view similar to what we have expressed above has been taken by a Bench of this in Annamalai v. The Collector of Ramanathapuram, (1988)2 M.L.J. 398 . The reasonings expressed by the learned Judges of the earlier Bench, we respectfully adopt to attempt to get over the Implications flowing from the explanation referred to above being our view, there is no warrant for interference in Writ appeal and accordingly appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.