Judgment :- 1. By consent of all parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. Prayer in these Writ Petitions is to quash the G.O.Ms (3Pa) No.14, dated 14. 2007. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Petitions are as follows: a) Petitioners in these Writ Petitions belong to Adi Dravida community and are residing at Vengamedu, Paramathi Velur. The 4th Respondent acquired the property situated in S. Nos.134/2, 137/1A and 137/1B of Pothanur Village in the year 1989 an extent of 2.29 acres for the purpose of assigning house sites to houseless Adi Dravida people. 4th respondent herein passed the Award in No.6/92-93 dated 212. 1992. By proceedings dated 4. 2003, 4th respondent issued assignment of house sites for about 61 persons. Petitioners are among the said 61 persons. b) The land assigned originally belong to one Ladamani Iyer. The acquisition proceedings were challenged before this Court in W.P. No.9795 of 1991 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 16. 1999 and thereafter according to the petitioners, they were given patta on 4. 2003 for two cents each. c) One S. Balasubramaniam, the legal heir of the original land owner, submitted petition to the respondents requesting to return the lands acquired for exchange of land in S.Nos.201/2, 201/4 and 154/1A, an extent of 4.03 acres. The acquired land is to an extent of 2.29 acres. According to the petitioners the alternate land promised to be exchanged by the said S. Balasubramaniam, 5th respondent in W.P. No.21595 of 2007, is in remote area and not accessible from all places and not within the town of Paramathi Velur. d) It is also claimed that the petitioners are in possession of their assigned lands from 4. 2003. Some of the petitioners are given electricity power supply by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The Government, through the impugned order, recommended for returning the land acquired to the legal heirs of Ladamani lyer by accepting the proposal of receiving alternate land. e) According to the petitioners, no notice was served on them even though they are also interested in the said matter. Hence these Writ Petitions are filed challenging the said Government Order dated 14. 2007. e) According to the petitioners, no notice was served on them even though they are also interested in the said matter. Hence these Writ Petitions are filed challenging the said Government Order dated 14. 2007. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that withdrawal from acquisition is not permissible, when possession is already taken and handed over to the beneficiaries and further there cannot be any re-conveyance after 18 years. 4. The District Collector, Namakkal, filed common counter affidavit and opposed the Writ Petition contending as follows: (i) The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Namakkal, initiated the land acquisition proceedings under the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894, providing free house sites to Arunthadiar and Adi Dravidars of Pothanur Village in respect of properties in S.Nos.134/1 measuring 0.60.5 H; S. No.137/1 A measuring 0.31.5 H; S. No.137/1 B I measuring 0.01.0 H. The land owner raised objections, which were overruled and acquisition proceedings were finalised and at the stage of award enquiry the land owner filed W.P. No.9795 of 1991 and this Court granted interim stay of dispossession. (ii) The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare completed the acquisition proceedings and passed an award in Award No.6/92-93 on 12. 1992 and compensation amount of Rs.3,17,851/- was deposited in the Sub-Court, Namakkal, under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquired lands were not taken possession as the stay was not vacated. However, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 16. 1999 and thereafter possession was taken through the Tahsildar, Paramathi Velur, under Section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act. (iii) The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Namakkal submitted a list of beneficiaries to the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Namakkal, who had not approved the beneficiaries list and layout plan and instructed to conduct an enquiry and submit a revised list of beneficiaries with layout plan. Subsequently, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Namakkal, selected 61 persons and submitted another list of beneficiaries with layout plan to the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Namakkal, for approval. (iv) On receipt of the approval order, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, issued house site pattas to 61 family an extent of 2 cents per family on 30.4.2003. However, he has not identified the house plots to the beneficiaries for the construction of houses as per the layout plan. (iv) On receipt of the approval order, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, issued house site pattas to 61 family an extent of 2 cents per family on 30.4.2003. However, he has not identified the house plots to the beneficiaries for the construction of houses as per the layout plan. The land was not measured and sub-divided for allotment to the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries and some others forced their entry into the land, due to which law and order problem is still in existence. (v) Aggrieved by the said order issuing pattas to 61 persons one Singaravelu, President of All India Ambedkar Peoples Right Protection Movement, Shanmuga Nilayam, Palapatti village, Paramathi Velur Taluk, and the President of Everbright Development Centre, Chennai-7 presented objection petitions before the Collector of Salem and requested to cancel the 61 house site pattas as they are ineligible persons and requested to issue fresh pattas to the beneficiaries as per their list. The District Collector instructed the Tahsildar to verify the genuineness of the claim of 61 beneficiaries, who were identified and issued with patta. (vi) The Tahsildar conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 20.11.2003 to the District Collector stating that most of the beneficiaries are ineligible. Hence the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Namakkal, in his proceedings, dated 112. 2003 cancelled the entire 61 house site pattas and instructed to submit a revised beneficiary list and layout after conducting fresh enquiry. (Vii) During pendency of the said proceeding, about 120 persons unauthorisedly encroached and occupied the acquired lands and some of them put up temporary thatched huts without any permission and they have also not vacated from the encroached huts in spite of repeated requests. The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Namakkl, through communications dated 20.7.2005 and 18. 2005 requested the President of Pothanur Panchayat and Junior Engineer of TNEB, Velur, not to collect house-tax and not to give electricity service connection. (viii) Apart from the above 120 persons unauthorisedly encroached in the said land, about 70 others have represented and also sought for house site pattas. Hence more than 120 eligible persons have to be provided with house sites. The acquired land measuring 2.29 acres is not sufficient for accommodating more than 120 persons as no proper sanitation and pathway is provided. The encroachers have put up huts in a hurried manner without leaving any space. Hence more than 120 eligible persons have to be provided with house sites. The acquired land measuring 2.29 acres is not sufficient for accommodating more than 120 persons as no proper sanitation and pathway is provided. The encroachers have put up huts in a hurried manner without leaving any space. Hence to provide house site pattas to more than 120 persons, alternate land of more than 4 acres have to be acquired elsewhere. The Government is the authority to decide the lands to be acquired and allotted and the beneficiaries have no right to ask for particular land and they are encroachers and pattas issued in their favour were also cancelled even before the identification of the place/area to them. (vii) In the said situation, the legal heirs of the land owner viz, L. Balasubrmaniam, son of E. Ladamani Iyer represented to the District Collector and presented a Petition stating that he is willing to offer his 4.03 acres in S. Nos.154/1A, 201/2 and 201/4 in Punjai, Edayar West and Veernampalayam villages for acquisition of lands. The said site is located near the bus stop at a distance of 250 metres; there are two mills for manufacturing cardboards within 250 metres; there are three harijan colonies nearby; there are tiled and built up houses nearby; the Taluk Office and NH-7 road are situated within a radius of one k.m.; and milk chilling centres are also situated at a distance of 2 k.m., and hence the alternate lands are not situated in a remote area as stated by the petitioners. (viii) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after careful examinations of the aforesaid reasons and in order to provide house site pattas to more than 120 families the District Collector submitted the proposal for acquiring the alternate land under private negotiations, measuring 4.03 acres, to the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, through the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai. The Director also recommended the proposal for acquiring the alternate lands to the Secretary to the Government and thereafter the impugned Government Order dated 14. 2007 is issued to initiate acquisition of alternate lands under private negotiations. The Director also recommended the proposal for acquiring the alternate lands to the Secretary to the Government and thereafter the impugned Government Order dated 14. 2007 is issued to initiate acquisition of alternate lands under private negotiations. (ix) It is also stated in the counter affidavit that since the respondents have not finalised the eligible beneficiaries to grant patta, the writ petitioners have no right to occupy the land and claim any legal right as if they are holders of patta issued by the Government. The acquired land measuring 2.29 acres are not sufficient for providing house site pattas to more than 120 persons. The acquired land could not be utilised for the purpose for which the lands were acquired and hence the acquired lands can be re-conveyed to the legal heirs of the land owner as per Section 48-B of the Act and the petitioners have no right to challenge the said order of the Government. 5. The Special Tahsidar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Namakkal, also filed counter affidavit by stating that 61 persons were identified and house site pattas of 2 cents each to 61 persons were issued. Aggrieved by the same, objections were received by the District Collector, from other associations viz, All Indian Ambedkar Peoples Right Protection Movement, requesting to cancel the pattas, as they are ineligible and therefore the District Collector I ordered verification of the beneficiaries about their genuine claim. The Special Tahsildar conducted enquiry and submitted a report dated 20.11.2003 to the District Collector and stated that only 28 persons are eligible and remaining 33 persons are ineligible. The District Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare Officer, Namakkal, by letter dated 112. 2003 cancelled 61 pattas and instructed to send the revised layout for approval and thereafter the District Revenue Officer instructed the Special Tahsildar to conduct enquiry about 61 persons and after enquiry, a list was furnished containing 50 names, who are genuine beneficiaries and remaining 11 persons were found ineligible. The claims of 11 persons found ineligible were again verified by another Special Tahsildar and a list was sent, which was also approved by the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer on 22. 2005. Thus house site pattas for the above 50 persons and above 11 persons could not be issued. The claims of 11 persons found ineligible were again verified by another Special Tahsildar and a list was sent, which was also approved by the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer on 22. 2005. Thus house site pattas for the above 50 persons and above 11 persons could not be issued. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in view of the higher number of claimants, 2.29 acres of land already acquired is not sufficient and therefore alternate lands as suggested by the legal heir of the original land owner was considered and found suitable for accommodating more than 120 persons and based on the report of the District Collector as well as Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, the Government approved the same to make negotiations with the legal heir of the original land owner and the petitioner has no right to challenge the same as they were not given possession by the respondents and they are only to be treated as encroachers. 6. Implead Petitions are filed in MP.1 of 2008 in W.P. No.21595 of 2007 and W.P. No.23587 of 2007 by 51 persons stating that they are the only beneficiaries to be given assignment of lands and as of now 124 persons are occupying the said acquired land and the persons who are issued pattas originally are not to be treated as genuine persons and if the alternate land is taken possession, all the persons can be accommodated in the said place and therefore the said 51 persons prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land having been acquired and possession having been taken and after the issue of pattas in favour of 61 persons, they are actually in possession of their respective lands and at this stage the said land cannot be re-conveyed to the legal heirs of the original land owner, merely on the suggestion made by the legal heir that alternate land will be provided. The learned counsel further submitted that the possession having been taken and the purpose for which the acquisition is still available, the Government has no power to re-convey the land to the legal heirs of the original land owner under Section 48-B of the Act. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel cited some of the decisions. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the possession having been taken and the purpose for which the acquisition is still available, the Government has no power to re-convey the land to the legal heirs of the original land owner under Section 48-B of the Act. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel cited some of the decisions. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that even though the land acquisition proceedings were finalised and possession was taken by the Government, the beneficiaries were not fully identified. She also submitted that even though 61 persons were identified and they were issued with pattas however without possession, the said pattas were also cancelled on the basis of the complaint received from the Adi Dravidar groups. The beneficiaries having been not given possession of any portion of the lands, i.e. extent of 2 cents, they are not put in legal possession in their respective areas. Hence they have no vested right to claim and the beneficiaries and persons claiming patta are numbering over 120, encroached into the acquired land and that will not confer any right to them to retain their encroached area. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the acquired area is not sufficient to accommodate all the claimants and therefore when the suggestion was made by the legal heir viz., 5th respondent in W.P. No.21595 of 2007, the same was considered by the District Collector after inspecting the site and the said land having an extent of more than 4.03 acres, is found suitable for accommodating all the claimants numbering 120. The said land is also very near to bus stand, harijan colony and Milk chilling plant, etc. Hence there will be no hardship to the petitioners to reside in the alternate land. 9. The said land is also very near to bus stand, harijan colony and Milk chilling plant, etc. Hence there will be no hardship to the petitioners to reside in the alternate land. 9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent in W.P. No.21595 of 2007 submitted that the impugned order is not re-conveyance in the strict sense and it is only exchange of land on the very same terms and conditions and by giving more area, by the 5th respondent by receiving the very same compensation deposited for acquiring 2.29 acres, the 5th respondent is not benefitted in any manner and the action of the respondents will serve public purpose in more beneficial manner and the petitioners have no right to object the same as they will also be in a position to get assignment in the new area. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents submitted that if the new site is chosen instead of the earlier site acquired, more members numbering more than 120 persons will be in a position to get allotment of house site and therefore the action of the Government is more beneficial to Adi Dravidar people and therefore he has also prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4, learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent in W.P. No.21595 of 2007 and the learned counsel for 6th respondent in W.P.No.21595 of 2007 and respondents 5 to 54 in W.P. No.23587 of 2007. 12. The point in issue is whether the petitioners have locus standi to object the action of the Government in issuing the impugned order dated 14. 2007 ordering exchange of land already acquired in lieu of 4.03 acres in the new site offered by the 5th respondent in W.P. No.21595 of 2007 for allotment of house sites to Adi Dravidar people. 13. The facts in these cases are not in dispute i.e., acquisition of 2.29 acres of the land owned by Ladamani Iyer in S. Nos.135/2, 137/1A and 137/1-B. The acquisition proceedings reached finality, possession was taken by the Department, compensation amount was also deposited before the Sub-Court. The said amount is not withdrawn by the land owner or his legal heir, till date. The said amount is not withdrawn by the land owner or his legal heir, till date. It is true that 61 persons were given pattas to an extent of 2 cents each for construction of house site. However, the area for the above said 61 persons are not identified till date and possession was also not handed over by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that on being given patta to the said 61 persons they occupied the land and constructed huts and some of them have been given electricity service connection. It is also the case of the respondents that the patta issued in favour of the 61 persons were cancelled subsequently. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said cancellation orders are not communicated to the petitioners, the fact remains that the pattas are cancelled and even if the petitioners are entitled to retain the pattas before allotting the specific land in favour of them, it is open to the respondents to cancel the same and offer alternative land. 14. From the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector it is evident that more than 2.29 applications for allotment of house site pattas are pending with the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Namakkal, and 120 persons have put up huts in the property, which was already acquired and in order to accommodate all the eligible persons, the land acquired already, that is 2.29 acres is not sufficient. Hence the alternate suggestion made by the legal heir of the erstwhile land owner viz., 5th respondent in W.P. No.21595 of 2007 was considered. The alternate site measuring 4.03 acres was inspected and on inspection it was found that the said land is located within 2 kms from the acquired land, and it is located at a distance of 250 metres. There are two mills for manufacturing cardboards within a radius of 250 metres; there are three harijan colonies existing in the nearby area; Taluk Office and NH-7 road are situated within the radius of one km; Milk chilling plant is located at a distance of 2 km; and hence it is not a remote area as stated by the petitioners. There are two mills for manufacturing cardboards within a radius of 250 metres; there are three harijan colonies existing in the nearby area; Taluk Office and NH-7 road are situated within the radius of one km; Milk chilling plant is located at a distance of 2 km; and hence it is not a remote area as stated by the petitioners. Bearing the said suitability of the land in mind and also the extent of the land and on public interest, the District Collector sent a proposal for acquiring the alternate land by private negotiations through the Director of Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai, who in turn recommended to the Secretary to the Government and on being satisfied with the facts that the alternate land is more beneficial to the public, the impugned order is passed granting permission for withdrawal of the earlier land acquisition proceeding on exchange of 4.03 acres by permitting the 5th respondent in W.P. No.21595 of 2007 to withdraw the amount already deposited towards compensation for the entire land, without any further payment. The said action having been taken by the first respondent on public interest as well as to give house sites to more than 120 Adi Dravidars, I am of the view that the action taken by the first respondent cannot be found illegal. Petitioners cannot be treated as interested persons for the purpose of withdrawal of earlier acquisition proceedings as possession was not handed over to the petitioners and pattas granted to them were also subsequently cancelled and as on date their possession is as encroachers. Since the petitioners are going to get alternate site for their housing purpose, their interest is also fully protected. Merely because more number of persons are getting house sites, the petitioners cannot object the said exchange of land. 15. There is no merit in the Writ Petitions and all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.