Judgment :- The two petitioners are brother and sister and are owners of the land in S.Nos. 29/9, 29/7B2 situated in Velankulam hamlet of Naramangalam Village in Ramanathapuram Taluk. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said lands have been acquired under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 for the purpose of distributing house sites to the landless Adi Dravidars residing in the Village. The ground of attack raised in the Writ Petition was that there were other lands available in the Village and no notice was given to the petitioners under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act. The petitioners were also sole cultivators and there are no other lands available to them in the Village. 3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 30.10.1998 and this Court directed the stay of dispossession of the petitioners. Pursuant to the notice, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.12.2006. 4. It is stated in the counter affidavit that even as early as 10. 1997, the acquired lands have been allotted to 47 beneficiaries and pattas have also been granted. The original file circulated by the learned Government Pleader vouchsafe this averment of the respondents. All the beneficiaries have acknowledged the allotment letter given by the third respondent. 5. In any event, the grounds raised by the petitioners in attacking the acquisition proceedings cannot be countenanced by this Court. This Court in a detailed examination of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, has dealt with the issue and made an authoritative pronouncement in R. Pari vs. Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District and another reported in (2007) 2 MLJ 706 ). Even though some of its formulations were doubted by a subsequent Division Bench, once again another Full Bench endorsed the view in R. Paris case (cited supra). In that judgment in paragraph No.37, the Full Bench held that the scope of judicial interference in the matter of acquisition of lands is obviously very limited. In paragraph No.42, it is stated that the materials on record that is to say the relevant file should indicate the application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and it should not be a formal reasoned order. The function of the authorities acquiring the land is administrative in nature. In paragraph No.42, it is stated that the materials on record that is to say the relevant file should indicate the application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and it should not be a formal reasoned order. The function of the authorities acquiring the land is administrative in nature. It is also made clear that ultimately the Court is only required to find out whether there has been application of mind. 6. In the present case, a perusal of the original file clearly shows that the land in question have been chosen after taking note of the relevant factors and the petitioners objections were also considered. In fact, the first petitioners husband Ayya Durai had appeared in the enquiry and that has also been recorded in the files. Further, the third respondent Special Tahsildar has clearly stated that after surveying the land that the land is suitable for house site and it has access to the road and there is no possibility of any water logging during rainy season. Further within ½ Km. distance water supply is provided and from the present locality, the lands are only within ½ Km. in distance and there are no construction in the building worth to be preserved and hence the lands should be acquired. The beneficiaries have also accepted the location of the land. The land has been so far kept as dry waste without any cultivation. All these factors were taken note of by the acquiring authority and he has endorsed the views of the third respondent. 7. In paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the land owners have got other wet lands and they will not be affected by the acquisition. This fact was not denied by any reply affidavit. Even other wise it is not a relevant consideration in acquiring the land for Adi Dravidar schemes, There is no other ground raised in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.