Judgment :- (PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 29.12.1995 of the first respondent herein made in Na.Ka.No.8681 of 1995 k8 seeking to acquire an extent of 0.03.0 hectares in S.No.126/1 A2 B (Nanja) out of 0.50.5 in S.No.126/1B (Nanja) belonging to the third petitioner Kaliamoorthy an extent of 0.0.2 Hectares in S.No.127/1B (Nanja) out of 0.58.5 Hectares belonging to the second petitioner R.Sadasivam and an extent of 0.02.5 hectares in S.No.127/1B (Nanja) out of 0.55.0 Hectares to the first petitioner in Enanallur Village, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavoor District and to quash the said proceedings.) In this writ petition, the owners of an extent of 0.02.5 Hectares in Survey No.127/1B Nanja have sought to question the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. 2. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the respondent for the purpose of providing passage to the burial ground. 3. The acquisition was objected to by the owners/ petitioners on the ground that there was already a road available for reaching the burial ground and that they being small land owners, the acquisition being contemplated on the middle of the properties held by them, it would result in completely making the land useless for any cultivation or for any proper use by the petitioners. They further asserted that the Adi-Dravidars in the village themselves had made it clear that they do not want the proposed pathway and that the passage which was already in use was perfectly convenient for them. This positive assertion in the affidavit is not at all controverted properly by filing any counter affidavit. Apart from the failure to file the counter affidavit, a perusal of the file also clearly substantiates the contention of the petitioners. At page No.97 of the file, the representation of the wife of one of the petitioners dated 23.12.1994 is found. To that representation, a plan is appended and according to the plan, the proposed pathway cuts across the small bit of land which is owned by the land owners. In the same plan, the present pathway is shown, which appears to be a comfortable one and separate without interfering with anyone's property and the said pathway leads directly to the burial ground. 4. In the same plan, the present pathway is shown, which appears to be a comfortable one and separate without interfering with anyone's property and the said pathway leads directly to the burial ground. 4. At Page No.117 is the report of the Special Tahsildar dated 27.11.1995. In the report, there is no reference to the contention on the part of the petitioners that the Adi-Dravidars living in the village do not want the road to be laid in terms of the acquisition proceedings. However, the file contains another letter of the Special Tahsildar dated 19.12.1995 at Page 123. The last paragraph in the said letter is as follows: The above extract clearly shows that the Adi Dravidars in the village have specifically represented that the existing pathway is sufficient and that they do not want the proposed pathway. 5. However, unfortunately, though the Collector had passed the order subsequently on 29.12.1995, there is no reference to the letter of the Special Tahsildar dated 19.12.1995. On the other hand, reference is made only to the earlier letter dated 27.11.1995 and after having reproduced the recommendation of the Special Tahsildar verbatim, the Collector had endorsed the proposal for acquisition. 6. This is one more case of unfair attempt to invoke the provisions of Act 31 of 1978 without any need or justification to proceed further with the acquisition. Even after the Harijans in the village had expressed that the existing pathway is sufficient for them and that there was no need to proceed with the acquisition, it is rather deplorable that the Special Tahsildar should have recommended acquisition and the Collector also should have blindly accepted the same, without any application of mind or proper perusal of the file which would have disclosed the letter of the Special Tahsildar dated 19.12.1995. With the result, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.5608 and 7798 of 1996 are closed.