Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents, culminating in the order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.1502/92/A, dated 1. 2003, and quash the same, in so far as the petitioner is concerned and to forbear the respondents from, in any manner, disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the lands in S.Nos.61/1B 3B, 61/1B 4A and 70/2 of Periya Negamam Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, without following the due process of law. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner and his elder brother N.Arumuga Gounder are the joint owners of the lands in S.Nos.61/1B 3B, 61/1B 4A and 70/2 of Periya Negamam Village. There were 230 coconut trees, in the said lands which were 9 years old and yielding. The proceedings had been initiated by the respondents for acquiring the said lands for the purpose of establishing a Harijan colony. Even though the petitioner and his brother was willing to offer alternate lands, free of cost, instead of the lands that were being acquired, the respondents were unwilling to accept the offer. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.4053 of 2002. 4. By an order, dated 211. 2002, this Court had directed the respondents not to proceed further, in view of the offer made by the petitioner and his brother. Though the officers concerned were satisfied with regard to the suitability of the alternate lands offered by the petitioner and in spite of the necessary encumbrance certificate having been produced by the petitioner, the third respondent had passed an order in Na.Ka.1502/92/A, dated 1. 2003, referring to an order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.136122/92/Ka, dated 1. 2003. No opportunity had been given to the petitioner and his brother before the impugned order had been passed. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that an extent of 2.90 acres of land in S.F.Nos.61/1B 3B, 61/1B 4A and 70/2 of Periya Negamam Village, had been acquired in Award No.8/95-96, dated 3. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that an extent of 2.90 acres of land in S.F.Nos.61/1B 3B, 61/1B 4A and 70/2 of Periya Negamam Village, had been acquired in Award No.8/95-96, dated 3. 96, passed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi, and the entire compensation amount awarded had been deposited in the Sub Court, Udumalpet, as there was some dispute with regard to the ownership and apportionment of the lands in question. 6. The acquisition was in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, No.31 of 1978. A notification, under Section 4 (1) of the said Act, had been published in the Coimbatore District Gazette No.25, dated 20.95. Section 5 of the said Act, specifies that when a notice, under Section 4(1), is published in the District Gazette, the land would vest, in Government, absolutely, free from all encumbrances. Accordingly, the land had vested in the Government, on and from 20.95. .7. It has been further stated that the land owner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3854 of 1996 and W.A.No.939 of 2001, before this Court and they had been dismissed by orders, dated 211. 2000 and 28. 2001, respectively. The possession of the lands in question had been taken over by the respondents, on 24. 2001. The acquired land was laid out into house sites and house site pattas had been distributed to the beneficiaries, on 112. 2001. 8. The land owner had filed another writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.4053 of 2002. By an order, dated 12. 2002, this Court had ordered status quo to be maintained in respect of the said lands. Thereafter, the land owner had come with an offer to accept the lands in S.F.No.118/27 and 188/32, measuring 2.95 acres, as alternate lands, instead of the lands acquired by the respondents. By an order, dated 211. 2002, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the offer of the land owner and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within the time specified in the said order. 9. Pursuant to the said order, the offer made by the land owner was considered in great detail. The alternate land offered had also a number of standing coconut trees which were 4 to 6 years old. 9. Pursuant to the said order, the offer made by the land owner was considered in great detail. The alternate land offered had also a number of standing coconut trees which were 4 to 6 years old. There were high tension and low tension electricity lines passing over the said lands offered by the land owner. However, the beneficiaries had expressed their unwillingness to occupy the said lands as the facilities like hospitals, schools etc. were not available near the said lands. Therefore, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Pollachi, had rejected the offer made by the land owner, in Na.Ka.1502/92/A, dated 1. 2003, served on the land owner on 1. 2003. Thereafter, the beneficiaries of the acquired lands were allotted their specific plots and they had occupied the same by putting up huts. House site pattas had also been distributed to the beneficiaries, on 112. 2001. Thus, the possession of the acquired lands was not with the land owner, as claimed in the present writ petition. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Doraisamy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the alternate land offered by the petitioner is adjoining the existing Harijan colony. Periya Negamam Panchayat Union School is situated very close to the alternate lands offered by the land owners. Further, the electricity lines passing over the lands could not really affect the allottees, as the alternate lands offered is a large extent. The petitioner had also undertaken to get the electricity lines shifted, at his own cost. A hospital is also situated close by and the allottees will not be put to any hardship or loss by being provided with the lands offered by the petitioner and the others, whose lands had been acquired by the respondents. 11. The learned counsel had further submitted that this Court, by an order, dated 21. 2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.604 of 2003, had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to submit a report regarding the suitability or otherwise of the alternate sites offered by the petitioner. In the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner it has been stated that the alternate lands offered by the petitioner is suitable for allotment of house sites for the proposed colony. In such circumstances the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1. In the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner it has been stated that the alternate lands offered by the petitioner is suitable for allotment of house sites for the proposed colony. In such circumstances the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1. 2003, is erroneous, since it does not give sufficient reasons for the rejection of the offer made by the petitioner and his brother, who are said to be the co-owners of the lands acquired by the respondents. 12. The main reasons stated in the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1. 2003, is that the District Collector, Coimbatore, had refused to accept the offer and that the allottees do not want the alternate lands offered by the owners of the acquired land. In fact, the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 211. 2002, made in W.P.No.4053 of 2002, had not been complied with, in letter and spirit. Therefore, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1. 2003 and the other related proceedings are to be set aside, as being arbitrary and illegal. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the lands acquired by the respondents had already been allotted to the allottees and they have been residing in the said lands from the time of the allotment. The respondents had considered all the necessary aspects as directed by this Court before rejecting the offer made by the owners of the acquired lands. Sufficient and proper reasons have been stated in the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1. 2003, to reject the offer made by the land owners. Having failed in their earlier attempts to stop the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to obtain the relief to nullify the acquisition proceedings by filing the present writ petition, even though the land acquisition proceedings had been completed and the deserving allottees had been put in possession of the acquired land, long before the filing of the present writ petition. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. .14. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. .14. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of the second respondent. 15. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is seen that the lands acquired by the respondents had vested in the Government, on 20.12.95, on the date of publication of the 4(1) notification. Recorded possession was taken by the respondents, on 24. 2001. It is also found that the allottees of the acquired lands have not been impleaded as parties, even though, the acquired lands had been allotted to the beneficiaries and house site pattas had been distributed to them on 112. 2001, even before the present writ petition had been filed by the petitioner, on 1. 2003. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that he has a legal right to compel or to persuade the respondents to accept the alternate lands offered by him, instead of the lands already acquired by the respondents for the purpose of making house site allotments to Harijans belonging to the concerned village. 16. In view of the principle of Eminent Domain, the State would have the privilege of acquiring the lands found to be suitable for the purpose for which they are acquired. Though certain exceptions have been recognised, it would not vest any additional right in the petitioner, to challenge the land acquisition proceedings, once it is found that the respondents had followed the procedures established by law, while acquiring the lands in question. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the established procedures, for acquiring the concerned lands, had been violated. In fact, the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner and his brother have been dismissed. Further, it is found that sufficient reasons have been given in the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1. 2003, for rejecting the offer made by the petitioner, with regard to the offer of alternate lands made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. Further, it is found that sufficient reasons have been given in the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 1. 2003, for rejecting the offer made by the petitioner, with regard to the offer of alternate lands made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.