Judgment :- R. Sudhakar, J. The District Collector, Coimbatore District and the Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department), Coimbatore, have filed the appeal, challenging the order dated 112. 2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23777 of 2001. 2. The land acquisition proceedings in question were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978). The writ petition was filed challenging the Notification dated 28. 2001 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the Award No.4/2001-2002 in reference No.16/2001 (A) dated 210. 2001. The respondent/writ petitioner is the owner of 49 cents of land bearing Survey No.347/2A, Perur Chettipalayam village, Coimbatore South Taluk. 3. The main contention on behalf of the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge was that Form-I does not speak about the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired and that the writ petitioners objections were not properly considered. 4. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the "public purpose" has to be mentioned specifically so as to enable the land owner to give objection. Unless the land owner knows about the specific purpose, he will not be in a position to give effective objection. The learned single Judge relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board – vs. - Mohd Shafi and others ( 1992(2) SCC 168 ). 5. Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) reads as follows:- "4. Power to acquire land – (1) Where the District Collector is satisfied that, for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publishing on the District Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section." (emphasis supplied) Section 3(g) of the said Act describes what is Harijan Welfare Scheme and reads as follows:- "3. Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- .(a) to (f) xxx .(g) "Harijan Welfare Scheme" means any scheme for provision of house-sites for Harijans for constructing, extending or improving any dwelling-house for Harijans or for providing any burial or burning grounds for Harijans or for providing any pathway leading to such dwelling-house, burial or burning grounds, or for providing any other amenity for the benefit of Harijans;" Section 4(1) provides that if the District Collector is satisfied that, for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publishing in the District Gazette a notice to that effect that he has decided to acquire the land. Before publishing such notice under Section 4(1) of the Act, Clause (2) of Section 4 provides for notice to the owner or any other person who is interested in such land to show cause why it should not be acquired. Section 3(g) sets out the various Harijan Welfare Schemes. Therefore, on reading of Section 4(1) with Section 3(g) of the Act, it is clear that the District Collector, if satisfied, can take proceedings to acquire the land for any one of the purposes mentioned in Section 3(g) of the Act for Harijan Welfare Schemes. 6. The contention of the respondent/writ petitioner is that the specific purpose should be specified in the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, he contended that the Form-I Notice issued in the instant case without setting out the purpose of acquiring the land was vague and invalid in law. 7. The Notification issued by the District Collector under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land For Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) is as follows (translated from Tamil to English):- ".....the lands mentioned in the schedule, situated at Perur Chettipalayam village, Coimbatore South Taluk and Coimbatore District are required for the purpose of providing free house-site pattas to the landless poor Adi Dravidars under the Harijan Welfare Scheme.... " We find that the Form I Notice and the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is in furtherance of the object of the Act 31 of 1978 and in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act and the Harijan Welfare Schemes as envisaged under Section 3(g) of the Act. " We find that the Form I Notice and the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is in furtherance of the object of the Act 31 of 1978 and in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act and the Harijan Welfare Schemes as envisaged under Section 3(g) of the Act. The Form I Notice and the Notification issued are for Harijan Welfare Scheme. There is no requirement in the above said provision (i.e.) Section 4(1) of the Act or in Form-I issued under Rule 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land For Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979, that the particular scheme should be specifically mentioned in the Notification. If the object of the acquisition is not for Harijan Welfare Scheme, the writ petitioner can always object to the same. If the contention of the writ petitioner that the individual scheme should be specifically mentioned in the Notification, is accepted, it will lead to an anomalous situation where acquisition under the Act 31 of 1978 can be challenged for trivial reasons. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that the acquisition is bad because it is not intended for Harijan Welfare Scheme and it is for some other purpose. The decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned single Judge will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, because primarily the facts of that case relates to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act 1894). Secondly in that case, the Apex Court found that the "public purpose" stated in the Notification was vague. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) speaks about the public purpose. In that context, the Apex Court held that the object of issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Act was twofold that the intention of the Government to acquire the land is for any public purpose mentioned therein and thereafter it authorises the departmental officers or officers of the local authority to do all such acts as mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Central Act 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) should be with sufficient clarity not only on the "public purpose" for which the acquisition proceedings were commenced, but also made known in the locality where the land is situate with as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the interested person to know as to which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing objections. In the present case, under the State Act 31 of 1978, the acquisition is not for public purpose, as per Section 4(1) of Central Act, but for Harijan Welfare Scheme and that has been specifically stated so in Form-I Notice and also in the Section 4(1) Notification. Paragraph 14 of the Apex Court judgment relied on by the learned single Judge also cannot support the case of the respondent/writ petitioner. The Apex Court clearly held that the State cannot acquire the land of a citizen for building some residence for another, unless the same is in public interest or for the benefit of the public or for identifiable section thereof. Therefore, in the absence of any public purpose, the Apex Court interfered with the acquisition proceedings in that case. In the present case, such issue does not arise. Because, even under the State Act, the power to acquire land for Harijan Welfare Scheme is definite and once that purpose is specifically indicated, nothing further is to be added or clarified in the Form or Section 4(1) Notification. The facts of the present case are not analogous to the facts of the decision of the Apex Court ( 1992(2) SCC 168 cited above). Therefore, we find that the Form-I Notice and the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in furtherance of the objects of the Act 31 of 1978. There is no vagueness and the purpose is also specifically mentioned. 8. For the above said reasons, the impugned order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.