Judgment :- (Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge (T. Meenakumari, J.), dated 06.03.2000, made in W.P. No.18648 of 1992.) P. Sathasivam, J. The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 06.03.2000, made in W.P.No.18648 of 1992, dismissing the same as devoid of merits. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. In the light of the judgment to be passed hereunder, there is no need to refer all the factual matrix as stated in the affidavit. 4. According to the petitioner/appellant, she is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.60/3, having an extent of 1.74 acres, which is under land acquisition proceedings for housing the Adi Dravidas. In the representation dated 19.06.2002, the petitioner through her power of attorney agent P.S.Selvakumar, conveyed her willingness to give alternate land bearing Survey No.74/9, having an extent of 1.17 acres, for housing the Adi Dravidas. It is also stated that the said land is situated adjoining the Adi Dravida Colony. In the same representation, it is further stated that she is willing to give this alternate land provided the Government is willing to drop the acquisition proceedings in G.O.No.3D 653, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, dated 05.07.1991, in respect of S. No.60/3. It is further seen that based on the said representation, the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravida Welfare), Namakkal, convened a meeting for the same. In the letter dated 28.05.2003, the Special Tahsildar informed the petitioner that since a high-tension-wire is crossing the land in S. No.74/9, if the same is shifted, the request of the petitioner will be considered. Based on the said communication, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and on their direction paid necessary shifting charges. It is also brought to our notice that finally, the Board shifted the High Tension Wire passing across the land in S. No.74/9. The petitioner has also secured a letter from Union Bank of India, Mallasamudram Branch, Tiruchengode, and Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Mallasamudram, to show that the alternate land offered is free from encumbrance. Finally, the petitioner's power of attorney agent has also submitted an undertaking to the effect that they are agreeable for private negotiations. All those details/documents are available in the additional typed set of papers vide page Nos.1 to 13. 5. Finally, the petitioner's power of attorney agent has also submitted an undertaking to the effect that they are agreeable for private negotiations. All those details/documents are available in the additional typed set of papers vide page Nos.1 to 13. 5. After consideration of the request made by the petitioner, the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravida Welfare), Namakkal, in his letter Na.Ka.No.233/2000/A, dated 16.08.2004, requested the Sub Registrar, Mallasamudram, to furnish guideline value in respect of the land in S. No.74/9, Kilmugam Village, Mallasamudram. According to the counsel for the petitioner/appellant, thereafter, the petitioner has not received any reply from the second respondent; hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court for necessary direction to the respondents to consider the proposal of the petitioner in respect of alternate land in S.No.74/9. 6. Inasmuch as the petitioner is willing to provide alternate land to an extent of 0.47.5 Hectare in S.No.74/9, which, according to her, is suitable and nearer to the existing Adi Dravida Colony and also free from encumbrance; and also taking note of the assertion that possession is still with the petitioner/appellant, which is evident from the fact that a Division Bench of this Court granted stay on 05.01.2001 and the same was made absolute on 27.10.2003, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by directing the second respondent to consider the proposal of the petitioner in respect of alternate land in S. No.74/9. Depending upon the opinion of the second respondent, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. In view of the fact that the petitioner/appellant is in possession of the land and that she had the benefit of stay right from 05.01.2001, till final decision is taken by the respondents in respect of the offer of the petitioner for alternate site, her possession shall not be disturbed. The second respondent is directed to take decision one way or other within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 7. Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.