Judgment :- 1. In W.P. No.4345/2000, the petitioner, Jeyarama Reddiar, has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Section 4 (1) Notification W2/10895/99 dated 3.2.2000 issued under The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978, published in the Cuddalore District Gazette dated 9.2.2000 and quash the same. 2. In W.P. No.4346/2000, the petitioner, Thulasi, has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Section 4 (1) Notification W2/10895/99 dated 3.2.2000 issued under The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, published in the Cuddalore District Gazette dated 9.2.2000 and quash the same. 3. In W.P. No.4347/2000, the petitioner, Nirmala, has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Section 4 (1) Notification W2/10895/99 dated 3.2.2000 issued under The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act 31 of 1978, published in the Cuddalore District Gazette dated 9.2.2000 and quash the same. 4. In all these writ petitions, the same notification issued by the first respondent is being challenged, though each one of the petitioner owns a different survey number and different extent. The difference being ownership or the survey number and the extent of the land. The petitioner in W.P. No.4345 of 2000 claims that he is the owner of lands measuring 0.25.0 Hectares in RS No.162/8 in Madhalapattu Village, while the petitioner in W.P. No.4346 of 2000 claims that she is the owner of the lands measuring 9.25.0 Hectares in RS No.14/2A in Keel Alinjipattu Village, Cuddalore Taluk, while the petitioner in W.P. No.4349 of 2000 claims that she is the owner of the land measuring 0.25.0 Hectares in RS No.14/1, Keel Alinjipattu Village, Cuddalore Taluk. 5. In fact on the earlier occasion, this Court directed the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare to appear before the Court to explain the discrepancy set out in page 7 of the counter affidavit. Such a direction was issued since the learned Government Advocate, after perusing of the file reported that the Collector has not issued any direction under Section 4 (1) of the Act. On a perusal of the Collector's file also the orders passed by the District Collector was not available. Such a direction was issued since the learned Government Advocate, after perusing of the file reported that the Collector has not issued any direction under Section 4 (1) of the Act. On a perusal of the Collector's file also the orders passed by the District Collector was not available. The writ petition came to be listed on 21.2.2003 and on that date, the two Special Tahsildars, Adi Dravidar Welfare were present and they produced the original orders of the Collector from the note file to show that the District Collector has applied his mind after considering and overruling the objections and issuing a direction under Section 4 (1) of the Act. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the District Collector, the first respondent, has considered the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, considered the objections of the land owner and overruled the same in the larger interest of the public and directed publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. This contention fails and, hence, the remaining contentions alone are required to be considered. 6. Heard Ms.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the three writ petitions and Ms.D.Malarvishi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents in all the three writ petitions. 7. A notice under Section 4 (2) of The Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 was issued to the land owners and they were called upon to submit their objections on or before 25.11.1999. The land owners submitted their objections. A notice under Section 4 (2) was again issued to the land owners and they were served. The land owners submitted their objections. The petitioner in W.P. No.4346/2000 is the wife of Jeyarama Reddiar, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.4345/2000 and Nirmala, the petitioner in W.P. No.4347/2000 is the brother's wife of said Jeyarama Reddiar and Bharathi is the daughter of the said Nirmala. All the lands were actually under the enjoyment of Jeyarama Reddiar and his family members. It is claimed that there are 55 houseless poor Adi Dravidars in Karikkan colony in Madhalapattu Village and to provide house sites, the acquisition proposals were submitted. 8. All the lands were actually under the enjoyment of Jeyarama Reddiar and his family members. It is claimed that there are 55 houseless poor Adi Dravidars in Karikkan colony in Madhalapattu Village and to provide house sites, the acquisition proposals were submitted. 8. The petitioners were served with a notice in Form-I under Rule 3 (1) of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, dated 8.11.99 calling upon the petitioners herein to submit their objections within fifteen days and requiring the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 25.11.99 to show cause as to why the lands should not be acquired under Section 4 (2) of The Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. On 17.11.99 objection was submitted by the petitioners. It is pointed out in the objections that notice is silent as to for whose benefit or to benefit of which of the Adi Dravidars, the lands are being acquired is not set out and, therefore, the petitioners are unable to state their objections. The petitioners have also stated that all the harijans in Keel Alinjipattu and Madhalapattu villages are possessed of houses and there are no houseless Adi Dravidars in the said village. 9. Once again Form-I dated blank, December, 1999, was served calling upon the petitioner to appear on 27.12.1999 at 10.30 a.m. for enquiry. The petitioners appeared and objected to the acquisition. The petitioners also pointed out that what is the purpose for which or for whose benefit the lands are sought to be acquired is not set out and, therefore, the acquisition cannot be continued. Further, in the District Gazette dated 9.2.2000 the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act has been issued. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed by three different owners covered by Section 4 (1) Notification. 10. As already pointed out, initially it was contended that the District Collector, who is the competent authority under Section 4 (1) of the Act has neither considered the objection nor passed an order under Section 4 (1) or a direction to acquire the lands. According to the petitioners, the District Collector has not considered the objections and he has not satisfied himself that for the purpose of harijan welfare scheme it is necessary to acquire the land and without his satisfaction a notification under Section 4 (1) has been issued. According to the petitioners, the District Collector has not considered the objections and he has not satisfied himself that for the purpose of harijan welfare scheme it is necessary to acquire the land and without his satisfaction a notification under Section 4 (1) has been issued. This contention cannot be sustained as the production of the Collector's note file shows that the Collector had considered the objections, overruled the objections and ordered acquisition of the lands in exercise of power conferred under Section 4 (1) of the Act and directed publication of such notification in the District Gazette. Hence, this contention fails. 11. Secondly it is contended that Form-I issued under Rule 3 (i) and Form-II, nowhere it has been mentioned that the land is acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adi Dravidars of a particular place or village or town. Therefore, it is contended that the notification in Form-I as well as Form-II are vague and defective, which has resulted in denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner to state their objections. Even in the objections, the petitioners pointed out that notice is silent as to for which of the Adi Dravidars the land is proposed to be acquired or being acquired and in the absence of such particulars, the petitioners are disabled from raising appropriate objections. The petitioners also contended that there are no houseless Adi Dravidars in the village. 12. The notification issued under Form-I in the present case proceeds as if the scheduled mentioned land is required for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. The notice is silent as to which Adi Dravidars or Adi Dravidar resident of the particular town or village, the land is intended to be acquired. So also the gazette notification issued under Section 4 (1) is silent. In Section 4 (1) notification, nowhere it has been stated that the land is acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars of the particular village. The material portion of Form-I (preamble portion) reads thus :- 13. The material portion of Section 4 (1) Notification as published in the gazette (preamble portion) reads thus:- 14. Rule 3 (1) prescribes Form-I and Rule 3 ii) prescribes Form-II for publication of notification under Section 4 (1) in the District Gazette. The material portion of Form-I (preamble portion) reads thus :- 13. The material portion of Section 4 (1) Notification as published in the gazette (preamble portion) reads thus:- 14. Rule 3 (1) prescribes Form-I and Rule 3 ii) prescribes Form-II for publication of notification under Section 4 (1) in the District Gazette. In Form-I also the provision is there that notice is given when the lands specified in the schedule are necessary to be acquired for the purpose of (space left blank to specify the purpose). So also form-II which is the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act. If the notice issued under Form-I and the notification issued under Form-II is silent as to benefit of which of the Adi Dravidars the land is acquired, atleast by referring to their place or residence or locality, then the land owners will be in a position to state their objections. 15. That apart, the land if acquisition is completed it could be allotted to any Adi Dravidar in the State for dwelling houses. So the beneficiaries cannot be identified and any Adi Dravidars at large could be a beneficiary. Such is not the object of acquisition. It is fairly admitted that there are Adi Dravidars in the revenue village or hamlet where the land is located, but the notification is silent, namely, nowhere it has been mentioned that the lands are required for providing house sited to Adi Dravidars of the village either Madhalapattu or Keel Alinjipattu or other specified Adi Dravidars for being identified. The same defect also vitiated Section 4 (1) Notification as it is vague and suffers with same defect. 16. The petitioners have at the earliest opportunity have indicated this defect and also stated that the Adi Dravidar residents of the two villages are possessed of dwelling houses and there is none, who is without a dwelling house. Yet, section 4 (1) Notification has also been published without specifying the Adi Dravidars of the village or locality for whose benefit the lands are required. Such a land acquisition notification cannot be sustained as the purpose is vague, in that the beneficiaries atleast by their residence or village should have been indicated. Therefore, the notification cannot be sustained. 17. Yet, section 4 (1) Notification has also been published without specifying the Adi Dravidars of the village or locality for whose benefit the lands are required. Such a land acquisition notification cannot be sustained as the purpose is vague, in that the beneficiaries atleast by their residence or village should have been indicated. Therefore, the notification cannot be sustained. 17. Though the learned Government Advocate admitted that nowhere in Form-I as well as Form-II, Adi Dravidars have been specified by their residence or locality or village, but as seen from the counter affidavit as well as the proposal, the land is being acquired for Adi Dravidar of Keel Alinjipattu and Madhalapattu. Therefore, the acquisition is not liable to be interfered. This contention cannot be sustained as the owners, whose lands are acquired, should be informed of the purpose of the acquisition of land viz., Adi Dravidar of particular locality or place or street. In the absence of such indication, the owners are disabled from stating their objections. The land owners do not know as to what is the proposal. Equally the owners will not be able to put forth the objections effectively, which is the minimum requirement. In a given case there may be no such Adi Dravidar colony or street or village or houseless Adi Dravidars and in such case it is open to the owners to point out that there is no harijan, who requires a dwelling house. This compels this Court to quash the impugned acquisition proceedings. 18. On this short ground, the impugned acquisition is quashed. All the three writ petitions are allowed. The impugned acquisition is quashed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, liberty is given to the respondents to proceed denovo under the Tamil Nadu Act (T.N. Act 31 of 1978).