Judgment :- This writ petition is directed against the order of the fourth respondent, Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department, Kudiyatham dated Nil.11.1998 passed under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Act 31/1978) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 31 of 1978) in relation to the lands of the petitioner situate in Survey No.154 to an extent of 10. 0 hectares and Survey No.155 to an extent of 0.20.0 hectares. 2. The petitioner claimed to be the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Alayam, Keel Alathur Village, Katpadi Taluk and according to him, his ancestors have constructed the said temple as a private temple. The lands stated above are his ancestral properties have been in enjoyment of their family members from 1914 having patta No.51. After the death of original owner Krishnappa Mudaliar, the petitioner is stated to be in possession and enjoyment paying kists and other revenues to the Government and according to him, he has even perfected title by adverse possession. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent-Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department has not taken over the temple and therefore, the fifth respondent has no right over the properties. The fourth respondent has instituted the acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 and issued a notice under Section 4(1) in Form No.III, which is impugned in these proceedings ordering to acquire the said property for putting up the construction of house-sites to the Adi-Dravidar, Arunthathiar, Irulas of Kizhalathur village in the name of the fifth respondent Department. According to the petitioner, no notice has been served to him being the actual owner. The petitioner has raised his objections on 111. 1998 and sent notice through his counsel. The acquisition proceedings are challenged on the ground that the petitioner being the hereditary trustee of the temple to which the lands belongs, should have been given notice, that the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment has never taken over the property, that the petitioner being the present Dharmakartha, he should have been given notice under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978 before passing the impugned order under Section 4(1) of the Act 31 of 1978. .3. The fourth respondent-Land Acquisition Officer has filed the counter affidavit. According to the fourth respondent, the Arunthathiars, Irulas of Kizhlathur village have applied for provision of house-sites. .3. The fourth respondent-Land Acquisition Officer has filed the counter affidavit. According to the fourth respondent, the Arunthathiars, Irulas of Kizhlathur village have applied for provision of house-sites. Since there was no vacant and suitable poromboke lands in the village, the patta lands comprised in Government dry Survey Nos.154 and 155 to the extent of 10. 0 hectares and 0.20.0 hectares respectively, which stood in the name of Arulmigu Kasi Viswanatha Swamy Temple was selected for acquisition. It is the case of the fourth respondent that a notice under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978 was given to the Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Vellore and an enquiry was fixed on 17. 1998. The Assistant Commissioner received notice on 26. 1998 and sent a letter on 7. 1998 stating that he has no objection for the proposal of land acquisition. According to the fourth respondent, as per the Government Letter No.22393/LA/3/96-1, dated 9. 1997, since it is classified as a temple land, there is no necessity to get consent from the Department also. The proposal under Section 4(1) of the Act 31 of 1978 was submitted to the Collector of Vellore District and the Collector having accepted the proposal has issued order under Section 4(1) directed to be published in the District Gazette and accordingly, 4(1) order was published in the District Gazette on 110. 1998. Thereafter, award enquiry under Form III was sent to the Assistant Commissioner, Vellore on 11. 1998 fixing Award Enquiry on 211. 1998. Before passing the award, the petitioner has approached this Court filing the above writ petition, there is an order of interim injunction from dispossession. 4. It is the specific case of the fourth respondent that the revenue records stand in the name of Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Temple in Patta No.1 and the petitioner has never produced any documentary evidence to show that he is the hereditary trustee of the temple and that the lands are the ancestral properties. As the name of the petitioner did not find place in the village accounts, no notice was sent to the petitioner. Therefore, according to the fourth respondent, the procedure contemplated under the Act has been followed and that cannot be questioned by the petitioner. .5. Mr. As the name of the petitioner did not find place in the village accounts, no notice was sent to the petitioner. Therefore, according to the fourth respondent, the procedure contemplated under the Act has been followed and that cannot be questioned by the petitioner. .5. Mr. T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the fifth respondent-Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has also submitted that the property in question never belonged to the petitioner at any point of time. Even though the petitioner claims to be a hereditary trustee of the temple namely, Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Temple, he was never declared by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department as hereditary trustee. According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, as per the records, the property belonged to the temple and the temple is under the control of the Department. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the entire materials as well as the file produced by the respondents. 7. As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, and as seen from the revenue records categorising the lands, which are in question as Government dry with the name of owners of Arulmigu Kasi Viswanathar Temple, even now, the petitioner who claims to be the hereditary trustee of the temple, has not chosen to produce any records to that effect. It is seen that the notice under Section 4(2) has been issued to the fifth respondent on 26. 1998 and thereafter, an was enquiry was conducted on 17. 1998 and subsequently, as per the direction of the District Collector dated 19. 1998 ordering acquisition under Section 4(2) order was published in the District Gazette on 110. 1998 and in the mean time, since the petitioner approached this Court, the award is yet to be passed. On the face of the records, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is the owner of the property nor the petitioner has produced any evidence, even now to prove that he is the hereditary trustee of the property concerned. 1998 and in the mean time, since the petitioner approached this Court, the award is yet to be passed. On the face of the records, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is the owner of the property nor the petitioner has produced any evidence, even now to prove that he is the hereditary trustee of the property concerned. Inasmuch as, the revenue records stand in the name of the Government dry lands belonging to the temple and it is the specific case of the fifth respondent that the temple is under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, notice issued to the Department under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978 and the consequential final order passed under Section 4(1) of the Act 31 of 1978 cannot be said to be invalid. 8. In view of the same, there is absolutely no interference warranted with the matter and there is no illegality in the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.