Judgment :- Aggrieved by the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1973 published in the District Gazette dated 12.10.1995 relating to acquisition of land in Survey No.57/3 of Chinnamatarapalli Vaillage, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated here under:- According to him, he is physically handicapped with blindness in one eye and deafness and being the owner of about 5 acres of land in Survey No.57/3, Chinnamittarapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk. He is depending upon the agricultural income from the said land. An extent of 1.48.0 hectare of land was sought to be acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu for providing house sites to houseless Adidravidars. Initiallay, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act) was published in the Gazette on 12.01.1994 in Dailies on 13.01.1994 and the substance was also published in Village on 10.02.1994. The petitioner appeared for Section 5-A enquiry before the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Krishnagiri and objected to the acquisition proceedings on the ground that he is physically handicapped and solely depending upon the agricultural income. He also donated his land in Survey No.57/3 measuring 7,200 sq.ft. to the Government for the purpose of constructing Government Health Sub-Centre in the Village by a registered document dated 16.11.1982 and another piece of land measuring 3 cents in the same Survey number to the Government for the purpose of constructing a Panchayat Office by a document dated 17.09.1993. While so, after the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act in short) the Government of Tamil Nadu has caused publication of Section 4(1) notification in the District Gazette, Dharmapuri dated 12.10.1995, which is impugned in this writ petition. At this stage, questioning the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 3. Pursuant to the notice, the District Collector, Dharmapuri has filed counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that though the acquisition was initially under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act), subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court, the said acquisition proceeding was continued by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act. 3. Pursuant to the notice, the District Collector, Dharmapuri has filed counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that though the acquisition was initially under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act), subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court, the said acquisition proceeding was continued by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act. The respondent is fully justified in continuing the same and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Special Government Pleader for respondent. 5. There is no dispute that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court upholding the validity of Tamil Nadu Act, 31 of 1978 and in the light of the fact that the respondent had initiated acquisition proceedings under the Central Act and award was not passed on the date of the order of the Supreme Court, the respondent is well within his power to continue the acquisition proceedings by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act. However, it is the case of the petitioner that he is physically handicapped with blindness in one eye and deafness. The case of blindness and deafness was brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer even at the time of enquiry under Section 5-A under Central Act. Further at the relevant time, the petitioner was aged about 70 years. Now according to the counsel, the petitioner is aged about 76 years. In the affidavit, apart from the above aspect, the petitioner has also highlighted the donations made by him to the Government for the purpose of construction of Government Health Sub-Centre and Panchayat office. All the details such as extent of land, survey number, document number, date of registration, etc. find a place in page 5 of the affidavit. As a matter of fact, in the counter affidavit, the respondent has admitted the fact that at the relevant time the petitioner was aged about 70 years with defective eye and deaf ears (vide para 6 of the counter affidavit). 6. Apart from the above details, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to my notice the proceedings of the District Collector in e/ f/ vz;. 56175- 2000- j 3 ehs; 21/12/2000 wherein the beneficiaries in this writ petition were given house site pattas. 6. Apart from the above details, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to my notice the proceedings of the District Collector in e/ f/ vz;. 56175- 2000- j 3 ehs; 21/12/2000 wherein the beneficiaries in this writ petition were given house site pattas. By pointing out the proceedings of the District Collector, it is contended that in view of the order dated 21.12.2000, the beneficiaries for whom the land in question was sought to be acquired may not be required at this stage. 7. All these materials have not been properly considered by the respondent. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent Collector, Dharmapuri to consider the objections/grievances of the petitioner regarding his age, physical incapacity, being deaf and blindness, donation of his land in two occasions for public purpose as well as the subsequent proceedings of the Collector dated 21.12.2000 in e/ f/ vz;. 56175- 2000- j 3 assigning some other land to the beneficiaries and pass fresh orders and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In view of the fact that this Court granted stay of the impugned proceedings in W.M.P.No.3241 of 1996 even on 23.02.1996 and the same is in force all along, the same order shall continue till final decision being taken by the Collector, Dharmapuri as mentioned above. The writ petition is allowed to this extent. No costs.