ORDER: In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notification of the respondent dated 24.11.1995, issued under Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), and published in the Tiruchirapalli District Gazette on 13.12.1995, proposing to acquire their land of an extent of 1.41.5 hectares in survey Nos.64/1, 64/2, 65/2, 65/3 and 65/8 and 0.20.5 hectares in Survey No.68/2-B, respectively, in Kattuputhur (West) village, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, for providing housing sites under Harijan Welfare Scheme. 2. The petitioners challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the respondent had not considered their objection that there are enough poramboke lands available in the same village which could be acquired for the impugned Harijan Welfare Scheme; and that they are poor having meagre land holdings and therefore, as per G.O.Ms. No.620, Housing and Urban Development, dated 29.6.1990, the land belonging to poor persons with meagre land holdings need not generally be acquired unless otherwise the acquisition of the same is inevitable for the purpose of maintaining proximity and vicinity to the main village. 3.Per Contra, learned Government Advocate brought to my notice that the petitioners never raised an objection before the respondent during the enquiry under Sec.4(2) of the Act that there are enough poramboke lands available in the same village which could have been acquired for the Harijan Welfare Scheme. 4. The learned Government Advocate also brought to my notice that the petitioners are not totally depending on the income from the lands in question as they have got sufficient other source of income. On the other hand, it is contended that since the lands in question are very adjacent to the existing Harijan colony, it was found suitable for providing house under the Harijan Welfare Scheme to maintain proximity and vicinity to the village, when there is no other suitable poramboke land available to maintain such proximity and vicinity to the village. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 6. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 6. In Sannasi v. The District Collector, Pudukottai, (1999)2 M.L.J. 506 , taking note of the object of the Act, viz., to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in part IV and in particular Art.46 of the Constitution of India, viz., to promote the economic interest of the weaker sections of the people and in particular, the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, it is held that since the State Government thought that recourse to the Central Act, viz., Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would be time consuming and it is very difficult to implement the Harijan Welfare Schemes for the members of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 is enacted. 7. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the very object of the enactment itself is to avoid the time consuming process and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent should have explained to the Government that no poramboke land is available for the purpose of providing house under the Harijan Welfare Schemes and obtained prior approval of the Government before proposing to acquire the lands in question, placing reliance on G.O.Ms. No.620, Housing and Urban Development, dated 29.6.1990 cannot be accepted as the very role of the Government for such approval itself has been statutorily dispensed with by the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. In any event, in the impugned proceedings, it is found that the petitioners are not poor persons, depending on the income from the lands in question. 8. Finding no merit in the contention of the petitioners, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.