Judgment :- Both the writ petitions are filed against the orders of the Government refusing restore the lands of the petitioners from acquisition proceedings of the Housing Board. 2. Certain lands were acquired for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and bits of lands are the subject matter of these writ petitions, one is in S.No.2/lA and another S.No.2/10 etc. in Alagapuram Village, Salem District. 3. Both the petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings itself and failed. The petitioner in W.P.No.6078 of 1991 challenged the acquisition proceedings in W.P.No.3675 of 1981 it was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 19.1.1984 and the said order affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.No.822 of 1985 on 30.9.1985. A special leave met with the same fate and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9.11.1987. 4. The petitioners in W.P.No.1508 of 1991 filed W.P.No.7490 of 1982 and it was dismissed by S.Ramalingam, J. on 29.3.1990 and the said order was affirmed by a Division Bench W.A.No.621 of 1990 on 5.7.1990. 5. Obviously when one of the writ petitioner failed in the Supreme Court, the petitioners made representations to the Government to exclude their lands from acquisition. This not acceded to by the Government and as such the petitioners are before me questioning the orders of the Government refusing to exclude their lands. 6. Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Counsel, mainly contended that certain lands the same classification were excluded by the Government and there is no reason why petitioners should be treated differently. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it Art.14 of the Constitution. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that S.Ramalingam, dismissed a similar writ petition (W.P.No.15093 of 1990) with regard to the same acquisition proceedings, and when a review petition was filed, it was allowed by the learned Judge on 27.2.1991 and as such this Court could follow the order of S.Ramalingam, reviewing the order in W.P.No.15093 of 1990. The main contention raised is that since similar circumstances S.Ramalingam, J. allowed W.P.No.15093 of 1990 on a review very same facts, these impugned orders are also to be set aside, as it offends Art.14 Constitution. When certain lands were excluded from acquisition proceedings, the Senior counsel asks, Why not these lands which are the subject matter of these petitions could not be excluded from acquisition proceedings. 7. When certain lands were excluded from acquisition proceedings, the Senior counsel asks, Why not these lands which are the subject matter of these petitions could not be excluded from acquisition proceedings. 7. Notice of motion was ordered by me in these writ petitions on 7.2.1991 and 19.4.1991 respectively. The learned Government Advocate for Housing appears before me and submissions on instructions, though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf State. It is stated on instructions by the learned Government Advocate appearing for State that the petitioners ’ lands are classified as Government dry lands and the lands are essentially required implement the scheme and as such they were not excluded from acquisition. According the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that the lands which excluded are wet lands and that it is not the case here. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State further submitted that the land is acquired for the larger interest the Public and the right of the petitioner cannot look large and if at all, the petitioners entitled to compensation with solatium as provided under the Act. The learned Government Advocate submitted that all proceedings are over and the petitioners are dodging acquisition proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of houses, which the notification has been made as early as 1978, by approaching this Court repeatedly by filing writ petitions. According to the learned Government Advocate there is no violation Art.14 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the arguments of Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel petitioners, and of Ms.Kalaiselvi, Government Advocate appearing for the State. It settled that the power of eminent domain is the power of the State and this Court should very slow in interfering in such matters. It is also well-settled that the selection of sites the discretion of the Government and this Court cannot sit over appeal against the of sites. The acquisition of lands was upheld even upto the apex court of the land, at one of the writ petitions. Just because certain other lands are excluded from acquisition, petitioners have come to the court with these petitions as the State denied exclusion lands from acquisition. I do not think that this can be a subject matter of a writ based under Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Just because certain other lands are excluded from acquisition, petitioners have come to the court with these petitions as the State denied exclusion lands from acquisition. I do not think that this can be a subject matter of a writ based under Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Sec.48 of the Land Acquisition Act the State to withdraw proceedings of acquisition in respect of certain lands. The Supreme Court has held that in a case of withdrawal of proceedings by the State Government, order of withdrawal need not be backed by reasons and no opportunity is to be given owner of the land. If the Government is reluctant to go ahead with the acquisition proceedings in respect of certain lands on certain genuine difficulties, it cannot be and the State cannot be compelled to take over the land and that it can release the from acquisition. It is will settled that the State can exercise its power under Sec.48 Land Acquisition Act unilaterally. As such, it cannot be said that by not withdrawing the of the petitioners, Art.14 of the Constitution of India is affected. In State of Punjab v. Singh, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 319, the Supreme Court has held that court cannot interfere choice is made with oblique ends or is otherwise void. Only when the acquisition is made ulterior motive, it is mala fide. The Supreme Court has observed at page 321 as follows: “First, what are the facts? A grain market was the public purpose for which Government wanted land to be acquired. Perfectly valid. Which land was to be taken? This power to is left to the responsible discretion of Government under the Act, subject to Arts.14, 31 (then). The court is handcuffed in this jurisdiction and cannot raised its hand against it thinks is a foolish choice. Wisdom in administrative action is the property of the executive and judicial circumspection keeps the court look-jawed save where power has been by oblique ends or is otherwise void on well-established grounds. The constitutional cannot be upset.” As such, I am of the view that it cannot be said that there is any violation of Art.14 Constitution of India in this case. 9. The learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on the decision in Vishnudas Hundumal v. of M.P., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1636. The constitutional cannot be upset.” As such, I am of the view that it cannot be said that there is any violation of Art.14 Constitution of India in this case. 9. The learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on the decision in Vishnudas Hundumal v. of M.P., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1636. That was a case which arose under the Motor Vehicle a Special leave petition, when it was contended that certain existing operators allowed operate on overlapping portions of notified routes while the petitioners were denied facility, the Supreme Court directed that petitioners also to be given similar facility. It that the Special secretary in that case was not furnished with full information about valid permits in force at the relevant time and this resulted in gross discrimination the transport operators in the same class and holding that this is the discrimination persons in the same class, the order was made by the Supreme Court. I do not think this decision will apply to the facts of this case. The power of eminent domain is the State. Since it was found that the acquisition proceedings are not vitiated. Surely this Court cannot compel the Government to certain lands from acquisition. In my view, it is the prerogative right of the State what type of land which has to be retained and what type of land to be released considering the contingency. Equally the other decision in Devi Match Factory v. Superintendent Central Excise, Sattur, 1983 E.L.T. 99 (Mad.) under the Central Excises and Salt Act, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case. case, two classes of manufacturers were taxed differently and it was held that violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. I do not think that both these decisions are for the facts on hand. 10. Apart from that, it is interesting to note that with regard to the same acquisition, S.Ramalingam, J. dismissed the Writ Petition W.P.No.7490 of 1982 on 29.3.1990 said order was affirmed in W.A.No.621 of 1990 on 5.7.1990. The learned Judge has thought fit enough to review his order in another similar writ petition, W.P.No.15093 Originally dismissing it and on review, allowing the writ petition. A copy of the review has been produced before me. The learned Judge has thought fit enough to review his order in another similar writ petition, W.P.No.15093 Originally dismissing it and on review, allowing the writ petition. A copy of the review has been produced before me. Probably the review order has been made, learned Government Advocate on instructions informed the learned Judge that in proposed to be acquired, there are coconut and palmyrah trees, that it is a wet land there is a well and house. As such, the facts of the case in W.P.No.15093 of 1990 are different and it has been reviewed by S.Ramalingam, J. in Review W.M.P.No.27042 on 27.2.1991. 11. The learned Senior Counsel has produced before me a plan showing the lands to be acquired the village Alagapuram Pudur for Neighbourhood Scheme, in portions which were excluded and retained were marked. A look at the plan showing lands of the petitioner are in the area which has been retained by the State. The lands petitioner are registered as “dry” in the revenue records as stated by the Government Advocate on instructions. It is seen that the petitioner’s lands covered writ petitions are registered as “ wet ” lands and not fit for construction of houses, such, I do not see any reason that the order is vitiated. I am in entire agreement learned Government Advocate that the land is not wet land and that it is suitable construction of houses. I am of the view that the Government has taken a proper and it cannot be said that the Government has applied a different yardstick with the petitioner’s lands alone in not releasing them. 12. Apart from that, nobody, has got a right to come before this Court for withdrawal acquisition under Sec.48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The power of withdrawal under is given to the Government only under Sec.48 of the Land Acquisition Act. I do not any person has a right to come to the court and ask for a writ of mandamus to from acquisition a piece of land under Sec.48 of the Act. When such is the case, I do any reason to interfere with the order in question. The writ petition are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.