Judgment :- (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent against the order of the learned Judge Mr. Justice A. Kulasekaran dated 25.02.2002 made in W.P.No.3077 of 2001.) P. Sathasivam, J. The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.02.2002 made in W.P.No.3077 of 2001, in and by which the learned Judge, after satisfying himself regarding the compliance of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (Tamil Nadu Act 31/78) (in short the Act) and the Rules made thereunder, dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Special Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though notice was issued to the appellants in the award enquiry, they were not given any notice under Section 4(2) of the Act. We are unable to accept the said contention for the simple reason that on the date when 4(2) notice was issued, their father, viz., Thangavel Udayar was alive and in fact, on receipt of the notice, he (Thangavel Udayar) sent his objections through his advocate by notice dated 27.02.2000. The particulars further show that the Tahsildar concerned, after considering the objections received from Thangavel Udayar, forwarded his report on 17.11.2000 to the District Collector. The District Collector, in turn, after applying his mind and after satisfying himself, passed an order and issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, which was published in the District Gazette on 15.12.2000. Apart from the above factual position, it is not in dispute that all the appellants were given notice for the award enquiry. In such circumstances, the appellants, who are legal heirs of Thangavel Udayar cannot complain that they were not given notice under Section 4(2) of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the land owners/appellants are only holding small extent of lands, and hence, the acquisition is not warranted. We are unable to accept the said contention, because the particulars furnished show that the objections sent by the father of the appellants were duly considered by the District Collector, who passed the order for pursuing the acquisition proceedings. We are unable to accept the said contention, because the particulars furnished show that the objections sent by the father of the appellants were duly considered by the District Collector, who passed the order for pursuing the acquisition proceedings. It is relevant to note that the lands sought to be acquired are for the provision of house sites to houseless Adi Draviders. 5. Mr. R.G. Annamalai, learned counsel for the appellants also relied on certain Government Orders to show that the agricultural lands are exempted from acquisition. The Courts have repeatedly taken a view that the said Government Orders are instructions to the Department concerned and it is for the Department to follow them or not. In the absence of any specific provision either in the Act or in the Rules, we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for appellant cannot be accepted. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP., is also dismissed.