ORDER: The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the relief of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to withdraw the acquisition of 10.5 acres of land belonging to the petitioner comprised in S.Nos.64/2, 67/4, 67/6, 67/8, 70/17, 80/2, 80/3, 80/5, 90/2, 90/3 and 65/2 of Narasingapuram Village, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District of which possession has been taken. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that a total of 10.5 acres of land comprised in the Survey Numbers referred to above in Narasingapuram village, Wallajah Taluk, Vellore District belonging to him and his family. When the said lands were acquired for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), Ranipet, the petitioner questioned the land acquisition proceedings by filing W.P.Nos.1566 of 1982 and 7209 of 1982 and the said writ petitions were dismissed. He also preferred W.A.Nos.702 of 1983 and 8 of 1984 and they were admitted and interim injunction was granted to protect his possession of the property. It is also stated by the petitioner that the District Collector called the petitioner and requested him to agree for acquisition on certain terms. The District Collector after contacting the General Manager, BHEL, the 5th respondent, requested the petitioner to withdraw the writ appeals on the understanding that the petitioner’s family grave yard would be fenced and the keys would be handed over to the petitioner and 2.5 acres of land adjacent to the Harijan Colony would be given to the petitioner and jobs would be provided to the children of the petitioner as per rules. The petitioner accordingly withdrew the cases filed before the High Court. After withdrawing the writ appeals, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 5.2.1996 addressed to the District Collector. On 14.10.1985, the petitioner also addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent. It is his specific case that the petitioner withdrew the writ appeals on the above said understanding only but the 5th respondent /BHEL did not honour the commitment. However, the petitioner requested the Government to withdraw the acquisition proceedings. In reply to that, the Government also sent a letter dated 1.4.1983 stating that the matter was under consideration of the Industries Department. Therefore, the petitioner has stated that since the lands acquired for the purpose of the BHEL had not been utilised by the BHEL, he has filed this writ petition for the above said relief. 3. In reply to that, the Government also sent a letter dated 1.4.1983 stating that the matter was under consideration of the Industries Department. Therefore, the petitioner has stated that since the lands acquired for the purpose of the BHEL had not been utilised by the BHEL, he has filed this writ petition for the above said relief. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 filed a counter and the 5th respondent has not chosen to file counter. 4. According to respondents 1 to 4, it is submitted that the acquisition proceedings were over after following the due provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the award amount has also been deposited with the Court and a reference under Sec.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been made, since the petitioner and others could not prove their title regarding the possession of their properties. It is also submitted that the 5th respondent has utilised the lands for the purpose for which it was acquired and certain lands including the petitioner’s land are kept for future use. It is further stated that if the fifth respondent fails to utilise the lands acquired, then the same will rest with the Government and it is open to the Government to utilise the same for other necessary public purpose. It is their further submission that the petitioner and his relatives are the enjoyers of the above said lands in question and they objected to the acquisition on the ground that their ancestors were buried in S.No.80/3 which is patta land, not classified as burial ground. However, the objections raised by them were overruled by the Land Acquisition Officer, since the acquisition is for a public purpose. Further, after the dismissal of the writ petitions and the writ appeals filed by the petitioner and other similarly placed persons, the Tahsildar Wallajah Taluk was requested to take possession of the lands of the writ petitioner. However, the Tahsildar reported that the land owners have refused to hand over possession of the lands. Consequently, a notice was issued to them to surrender possession of the acquired lands in respect of S.Nos.80/3 and 65/2. Since the petitioner and his family members were not available, the notice could not be served on them. It is also stated that during 1998 the petitioner filed writ petition to avoid surrender of possession of the acquired lands and got stay on 2.4.1998. 5. Since the petitioner and his family members were not available, the notice could not be served on them. It is also stated that during 1998 the petitioner filed writ petition to avoid surrender of possession of the acquired lands and got stay on 2.4.1998. 5. The further contention of respondents 1 to 4 is that the lands in Wallajah Taluk including that of the petitioner were acquired, for formation of BHEL, Ranipet, a public sector undertaking, in five villages. They also denied having given any undertaking or a word of promise as stated by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner seems to have withdrawn the writ appeals on his own and having withdrawn the writ appeals, it appears the petitioner is attaching motive to the department officials. 6. Respondents 1 to 4 further submitted that more than 1000 acres of land had been acquired for the formation of ‘BHEL’ and the ‘BHEL’ undertaking has been utilising these lands for its present and future needs. It is also stated that there are no such proceedings issued for withdrawal of acquired lands of several land owners as alleged by the petitioner. Further, possession of acquired lands has not been taken till date because of some administrative reasons. Besides, the petitioner and his relatives also refused to hand over the possession of their lands. Action was taken by issuing notice under Sec.47 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.9.1997 and 10.11.1997, both to the petitioner and his brother’s son Prabhakaran Paul for taking possession of their lands. According to respondents 1 to 4, the petitioner’s relative Prabakaran Paul on receiving the notice, filed W.P.No.3753 of 1998 and the same was dismissed on 19.3.1998. However, the notice dated 10.11.1997 issued to the petitioner could not be served on the individual as the petitioner and his family members were not available at the residence. Only on coming to know of the notice having been issued to his relative, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and obtained interim injunction in W.M.P.No.7425 of 1998. 7. Therefore, the contention of respondents 1 to 4 is that the lands acquired are utilised for the present and future needs of the BHEL and the petitioner cannot seek any direction to withdraw the impugned acquisition proceedings. 8. 7. Therefore, the contention of respondents 1 to 4 is that the lands acquired are utilised for the present and future needs of the BHEL and the petitioner cannot seek any direction to withdraw the impugned acquisition proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that under Sec.16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the lands are liable to be handed over to the petitioner and the Government cannot keep the lands unutilised for such a long period. It is also submitted by him that in view of the fact that possession has not been taken and the award amount has not been withdrawn by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as sought for in the writ petition. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sec.16-B of the said Act would apply to the case of the petitioner and so the Government would have to withdraw the impugned acquisition proceedings. 9. Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that all the lands in question have been acquired and they have been utilised, excepting the lands of the petitioner. They also could not take possession of the petitioner’s lands because of the various Court proceedings and for administrative reasons. Therefore, it is submitted that the action taken pursuant to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be interfered with and the petitioner cannot seek any relief for withdrawal of the impugned acquisition proceedings. 10. I have gone through the affidavit and counter affidavit and also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader. 11. I find, on perusing the documents that though the lands in question were acquired long time back, the same could not be taken possession by the Government due to various litigations initiated by the petitioner and his family members from the beginning. Moreover, once such acquisition proceedings are taken, the lands vest with the Government and it is open to the Government to take action. 12. Moreover, once such acquisition proceedings are taken, the lands vest with the Government and it is open to the Government to take action. 12. Sec.16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as under: ""16-B. Land to be forfeited in certain cases: Where the Government are satisfied that the land acquired under this Act for any public purpose as referred to in Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, they may, by an order, forfeit the land as penalty and the land shall vest in the Government in Revenue Department free from all encumbrances; Provided that no order under this section, shall be made unless the person or authority aggrieved has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard."" 13. Even according to Sec.16-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, only when the Government is satisfied with the land acquired under this Act for any public purpose is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, then they may take action to forfeit the land as penalty. However, in this case, the Government have come forward with the statement in the counter that the lands in question have been acquired under the Land Acquisition proceedings and all the lands have been utilised for the present and future needs of the ‘BHEL’. Excepting the lands of the petitioner, all other lands have been put to use by the 5th respondent BHEL. 14. Further, this Court in the decision reported in Prithvi Trust Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005)3 C.T.C. 145, held that it is well settled in law that the Government has to consider the withdrawal of the acquisition only on merits, but the Court cannot compel the Government to withdraw the acquisition proceedings or to restore the possession to the owner of the land, as held by the Apex Court in S.P.Subramania Chetty v. K.S.R.T.C., A.I.R.1997 S.C.2076. I am in respectful agreement with the above proposition laid down by this Court which squarely applies to the facts of this case. 15. This Court cannot compel the Government to hand over the lands or withdraw the acquisition proceedings. I am in respectful agreement with the above proposition laid down by this Court which squarely applies to the facts of this case. 15. This Court cannot compel the Government to hand over the lands or withdraw the acquisition proceedings. Whether the usage of the lands in question acquired are sufficient or not, or whether the lands are going to be utilised or not, it is for the Government to consider and take action and it is not for this Court to interfere with the impugned acquisition proceedings. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.