Judgment : Heard the arguments of Mr. R. Balasubramanian representing Mr. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents and perused the records. 2. This writ petition arises under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijans Welfare Scheme Act 1978 (for short, T.N. Act 31 of 1978). The petitioner is the owner of land in S. No. 19/3 (0.85 cents) and 19.6C (0.56 Cents) in Odiyanthal Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District. The said land was sought to be acquired for providing house sites to Adi Dravidars of Odiyanthal Village and the Collector of Villupuram District issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the T.N. Act 31 of 1978 for acquiring the aforesaid lands along with lands belonging to other land owners. It is only the petitioner, who has come forward to challenge the said notification on the ground that the said acquisition was illegal and improper. 3. According to Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, the acquisition of lands providing for house sites to Adi-Dravidars is bad on the following grounds:- .(a) The adi-dravidars of the village have already been provided house sites and there is no adi-dravidar in the village, who does not have a house site in his name. .(b) Acquiring the lands under cultivation involve heavy costs whereas there are poromboke lands available which can taken over by the Government and given to them. .(c) Before publication, no opportunity was given by the District Collector to the land owners to put forth their view point. 4. The learned counsel also submitted that pursuant to the notice dated 07. 1996 issued under Section 4(2) of the Act, the petitioner had sent detailed objections dated 17. 1996 and 08. 1996 and they were not considered by the District Collector. He also submitted that the lands owned by the petitioner are required for his own use and his son wants to set up an Electronic Workshop under the Scheme for Self-Employment. 5. The writ petition was admitted on 23. 1998 and interim stay of dispossession of the land was granted by this Court. But, however, the other proceedings were permitted to be proceeded with. Though no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent, the learned Government Advocate circulated the original file from the respondents. 6. 5. The writ petition was admitted on 23. 1998 and interim stay of dispossession of the land was granted by this Court. But, however, the other proceedings were permitted to be proceeded with. Though no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent, the learned Government Advocate circulated the original file from the respondents. 6. A perusal of the said file clearly shows that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier with W.P. No. 2298 of 1981 challenging the acquisition proceedings. Since this Court had held T.N. Act 31 of 1978 as unconstitutional, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court and status quo was ordered. Subsequently, the matters were disposed of by a Division Bench vide its order dated 29. 1991. On appeal, the Supreme Court directed status quo to be maintained. In view of the same, the patta granted in favour of the beneficiaries were cancelled by the District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, by his order dated 16. 1992. However, the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 by its judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Ananthiammal [ 1995 (1) SCC 519 ]. Therefore, there is no longer, any impediment for the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of the lands owned by the petitioner under T.N. Act 31 of 1978. 7. It is seen from the original records that Survey No. 19/6C and 19/3 in Odiyanthal Village were owned by Venkatarayalu Naidu, whose son is the petitioner. It was also found that the petitioner owns vast extent of land in the same village and he is a rich agriculturist. The District Collector, rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner, had passed a detailed order dated 04. 1997 and held that the petitioner will not be put to any hardship by the acquisition. Even with reference to his objection that his son wants to start an Electronic Workshop, it was stated that there are other places where he could start the said workshop and even for having a threshing field and storing haystacks, they have other patta lands. The allegations of mala fide have also been denied in the matter of acquisition. Pursuant to the said rejection, notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, which is impugned in the writ petition. 8. The allegations of mala fide have also been denied in the matter of acquisition. Pursuant to the said rejection, notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, which is impugned in the writ petition. 8. Since the objections raised by the petitioner have been sufficiently dealt with by the respondents and they have also followed the procedural aspect enshrined in T.N. Act 31 of 1978, there is no legal ground for interfering with the impugned proceedings. A Full Bench of this Court, presided by P.K. Misra, J., in R. Pari vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai and another [ 2006 (4) C.T.C. 609 ] dealt with all the aspects of acquisition. In paragraph 37, it has been held as follows: Para 37: ".... The scope for judicial interference in the matter relating to acquisition of land obviously being very limited, the Court in each case is required to find out whether non-furnishing of the report in any way has prejudiced the person concerned. The object of furnishing the report and affording opportunity to the land owner to make a further representation is obviously to pinpoint any deficiency in the report of the authorised officer. If any particular aspect has been highlighted by the land owner and has not been considered by the authorised officer, the land owner would get a further opportunity to highlight such aspect before the District Collector. In other words, if the authorised officer has considered the relevant aspects indicated by the objector and made his recommendation, merely because a copy of such report is not furnished and no further opportunity is given to the land owner, may not be a ground to quash the land acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, if important aspects, which have been highlighted by the land owner, have been ignored by the authorised officer, it may be reasonable to infer non-furnishing of such report and non-offering of opportunity to make further representation might have vitiated the ultimate decision of the District Collector. These are matters to be considered on the basis of the facts an circumstances in each acquisition and it should not be construed that as a matter of law in every case where copy of the report has not been furnished and opportunity of making further representation had been denied, it is sufficient to quash such acquisition. These are matters to be considered on the basis of the facts an circumstances in each acquisition and it should not be construed that as a matter of law in every case where copy of the report has not been furnished and opportunity of making further representation had been denied, it is sufficient to quash such acquisition. Ultimately, the Court has to judge the prejudice caused to such person by keeping in view the facts and circumstances in particular case." The Full Bench also held that since specific provisions had been made in Section 4 of the Act and Rule 3 read with Form I, there is no other principles of natural justice involved in dealing with the said acquisition of land. 9. The principle laid down by the Full Bench came to be doubted by another Division Bench and once again, the said matter was placed before another Full Bench, presided by the Chief Justice A.P. Shah. The said Full Bench rendered its opinion in the case relating to Sundaravalli Ammal vs. Government of Tamil Nadu [ 2008 (2) CTC 241 ]. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the subsequent Full Bench observed as follows: Para 12: "Since we have found as stated in paragraph-8 of this Order that the conclusion of the Full Bench decision reported in R. Pari vs. Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and another, 2006 (4) CTC 609 : 2007 (2) MLJ 706 , has laid down the law appropriately and that there is no flaw in the said decision, we hold that the order of reference to a Larger Bench is uncalled for. The said Full Bench decision is therefore binding on the Division Bench." 10. In the light of the above and there being no infraction of any right of the petitioner, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court will stand vacated. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs.