Judgment :- (WAs.1875 to 1878 of 2005, filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 16.04.2001, made in WP No.8597, 8587, 8569 & 8576 of 1994. WA No.930 of 2006, filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 01.03.2001, made in WP No.8141 of 1994.) P. Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the common order of the learned single Judges, dated 16.04.2001 and 01.03.2001, made in WP Nos.8597, 8587, 8569, 8576 and 8141 of 1994, the appellants preferred the above appeals. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for the TNHB. 3. A perusal of the order under challenge in WA Nos.1875 to 1878 of 2005 shows that the learned Judge (F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.) followed the order passed by another learned Judge (P.D.Dinakaran, J.) while dismissing the Writ Petitions, which formed part of a batch of WPs. In WP Nos.8124 to 8147 of 1994 (WA 930/06 arises from WP 8141/94), P.D. Dinakaran, J., after considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the records placed, rejected all the contentions and dismissed the Writ Petitions. 4. In view of the fact that WP Nos.8569 of 1994 etc. came to be dismissed by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. following the decision in WP Nos.8124 to 8147 of 1994, dated 01.03.2001 and accepting the reasonings given therein, we deem it necessary to consider the initial order in WP Nos.8124 to 8147 of 1994. 5. Before the learned Judge, the first contention raised was to the effect that though the gazette publication of the notification under Section-4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was effected on 23.12.1992, Newspaper publication in two dailies ‘Dina Thoodhu’ and ‘Kumari Murasu’ was made even on 11.12.1992 and 13.12.1992 respectively, that is, prior to the publication in gazette, hence, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. The learned Judge rightly rejected the said contention as Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act contemplates three modes of publication; viz., Gazette, two dailies having circulation in the locality and causing public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality; and there is no provision which compels the authority that gazette publication should be effected first and followed by newspaper publication and causation of public notice at convenient places of the locality where the land situates. In fact, the said aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Accordingly, we concur with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge. 6. The second contention was that there was no proper enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act though the petitioners submitted their objections within the prescribed period. The learned Judge, on verification of the particulars furnished in the affidavit, arrived at a conclusion that there is no definite information as to the exact date on which the petitioners submitted their objections. In other words, there is no material to show that the objections were filed within 30 days as provided under the act. In such circumstances, though enquiry is to be conducted under Section 5-A, there is no obligation on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to conduct further enquiry in terms of Rule-4b of the Rules. We agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge. 7. Finally, it was contended before the learned Judge that inasmuch as the petitioners are poor agriculturists holding smaller extent of lands, the respondents are not justified in acquiring their lands. In support of the said contention, the counsel relied on certain Government Orders. It is not in dispute that the decision was taken by the Government to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the formation of a Housing Scheme by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Even otherwise, as rightly observed by the learned Judge, there is no such prohibition either in the Act or in the Rules made thereunder. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, the said Government Order, if any, is only for the sake of the officials for implementation of certain schemes and, in the absence of any specific rule, prohibiting such action, the same cannot be enforced. We endorse the conclusion of the learned single judge, thus, we do not find any merit in the appeals. Consequently, all the Appeals fail and they are dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeks permission of this Court for making representation to the Government and also a direction to the Government for passing appropriate orders, giving some relief to them. The petitioners/appellants are permitted to make representation to the Government within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeks permission of this Court for making representation to the Government and also a direction to the Government for passing appropriate orders, giving some relief to them. The petitioners/appellants are permitted to make representation to the Government within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that if any such representation is made and the request being permissible, the Government is free to decide and dispose of the same according to law within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.