Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, quashing the land acquisition proceedings, the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, have come forward to file this appeal. 2. Originally, the respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed two writ petitions, one in W.P.No.7676 of 2000, challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellants herein and the second one in W.P.No.3253 of 2001 praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents therein/appellants and the fourth respondent herein to exempt the lands in S.No.198/1A,1B in an extent of 10 cents at Koyambedu village, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai from the land acquisition proceedings, as it is meant only for the shelter of the writ petitioners and as done in the case of the adjacent land owners in pursuance to the proceedings in No.K1/10730/95, dated 27. 1996. The learned single Judge, after assessing the case, has allowed W.P.No.7676 of 2000, thereby quashing the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that there is no proper publication of the Section 4(1) notification. In view of the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings, the learned Judge has closed the second writ petition in W.P.No.3253 of 2001 as unnecessary. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, the respondents 1 and 2 therein have come forward to prefer this appeal. 3. The learned single Judge has found that the Section 4(1) notification was not published in the newspapers having reasonably wide circulation in the locality and has quashed the proceedings. In the case on hand, according to the appellants, they have published the Section 4(1) notification in "Kathiravan" and "Madurai Mani", which were held to be not having wide circulation in the locality by the learned single Judge. On behalf of the appellants herein, it has been argued that the said finding of the learned single Judge cannot be accepted since both the above said newspapers "Kathiravan" and "Madurai Mani" are approved newspapers and therefore, the contention of the writ petitioners should not have been accepted by the learned single Judge. 4. It is not the question as to whether the newspapers wherein the publication has been effected, are approved newspapers or unapproved newspapers. 4. It is not the question as to whether the newspapers wherein the publication has been effected, are approved newspapers or unapproved newspapers. The purpose of publication mandated under the Land Acquisition Act is that the people may get to know about the said notification under Section 4(1) so that they may be able to file their objections under Section 5-A or take other legal steps as they deem fit. In the case on hand, no material has been placed on record to show that "Kathiravan" and "Madurai Mani" are having wide circulation in the Koyambedu area of Chennai where the property is situated. It has been held so in many judgments by this Court, to name one is the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. J. Sivaprakasam and 10 Others [2005-1-L.W.799]. Therefore, the finding of the learned single Judge that there is no proper publication of Section 4(1) notification needs to be affirmed. 5. Based on the request of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA in short) to acquire the land for their perishable wholesale market complex at Koyambedu to decongest the Central Business District of George Town area and also traffic congestion, the appellants/Government have initiated the land acquisition proceedings. 6. It is seen from the records that an extent of 68 cents of land belonging to the family of the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 was already acquired for the purpose of Koyambedu Market and according to the respondents 1 to 3, the said land has not at all been taken possession by the appellants and not utilized for the acquisition purposes. 7. The case of the writ petitioners is that their father was the absolute owner of the land bearing S.No.198, measuring about 0.78 cents and after the earlier acquisition, only a meager extent of 0.10 cents has been left with for their family, which they are in possession and enjoyment by constructing a house in the same by spending their hard earnings, and after the death of their father, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It has also been submitted that their land measuring an extent of 68 cents was already acquired by the appellants/Government for the Koyambedu Market purposes in the year 1984 and award was passed in L.A.O.P.No.83 of 1986 directing the appellants to pay compensation for the 68 cents of land and since the amount has not been paid, an Execution Petition in E.P.No.2 of 1997 was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, has also ordered attachment of the movables in the office of the appellants and thereupon, the appellants have sought 15 days time to pay the E.P. amount of Rs.2,08,935/=. It is also submitted by the writ petitioners that this Court, on an earlier occasion, had quashed the acquisition proceedings in respect of the same land in W.P.No.7918 of 1984. 8. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that along with their properties, other properties were acquired by the appellants in the year 1984 for the purpose of Koyambedu Market and as per the G.O.Ms.No.232 Housing and Urban Development (U.D. 3(1) dated 20.9.2002, the properties of other land owners were reconveyed and as per G.O.No.233, 2.81 acres of land was reconveyed to the land owners and as per G.O.No.774, lands acquired were reconveyed to 27 persons and as per the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in J.T. 1996(1) S.C. 60, the land bearing S.No.167/13 was reconveyed to the owners. It is further submitted by the writ petitioners that as per the proceedings of the Member-Secretary, C.M.D.A., Chennai-8, in Proceeding No.K1/9547/96, dated 4. 2004, the land bearing S.No.56/4 to the extent of 10.5 cents was reconveyed to the land owners and various lands acquired for the purpose of Koyambedu Whole Sale Market purpose were released from this acquisition and reconveyed to the land owners. Citing the above examples, the writ petitioners would further submit that they are also residing in the property, which is only left over for their residence and livelihood, and therefore, applying the same norms, their lands can also be exempted from the acquisition proceedings. 9. The contention of the writ petitioners that the land in question is the only land available to them and no other land, for their living is available, has not been rebutted by the respondents/appellants. 9. The contention of the writ petitioners that the land in question is the only land available to them and no other land, for their living is available, has not been rebutted by the respondents/appellants. It is not the case of the appellants also that the respondents 1 to 3 are affluent and sufficient lands are left over for them to possess and enjoy. The only plea urged on the part of the appellants is that public interest will always prevail over the personal interest. No doubt, it is rather a settled proposition of law also that public interest will always prevail over the personal interest. But, it is also equally important to see the genuineness and legality attached to the grievance of the land owners. 10. In these circumstances, it is to be stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu has already considered the plight of the poor people with meager land holdings, whose lands are sought to be acquired and issued orders to exempt the lands of the poor persons with meager land holdings and also the land belonging to Harijans, unless it becomes absolutely inevitable. By the Government Memo.No.6300/H.W.X./7-2, S.W., dated 5. 1977, the Government has issued instructions in the following manner: "i) Land belonging to poor persons with meager land holding need not generally be acquired unless otherwise inevitable for the purpose of maintaining proximity and vicinity to the main village. ii) Lands belonging to Harijans should not be acquired except where it becomes absolutely inevitable. In such cases, the Collectors should obtain the prior permission of the Government for including such lands in the land acquisition proposals." 11. In G.O.Ms.No.2078, Revenue Department, dated 212. 1984, the Government has ordered that the land belonging to poor persons with meager land holdings to be exempted from acquisition and by the G.O.Ms.No.378, Revenue Department, dated 23. 1986, the Government has ordered that the land belonging to Harijans has to be exempted from acquisition. 12. In the case on hand also, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the respondents 1 to 3 are Adi-Dravidars and except the land under acquisition, no other land is available for them and they are co-parceners for the land, each getting a very meager share in the small extent of 0.10 cents of land, which is now sought to be acquired by the appellants. As has already been adverted to supra, the contention of the respondent 1 to 3 that except the land in question, they do not have any other property, has not at all been denied by the appellants/authorities. Therefore, even on this score, the case of the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein deserves to be accepted. It is also to be mentioned that the respondents 1 to 3 continue to enjoy the property till date, by paying necessary taxes to the Governmental authorities and their possession has not at all been disturbed in view of the stay order passed by this Court regarding the impugned acquisition proceedings. 13. From the materials placed on record, it is also seen that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority by its proceedingsNo.K1/9547/96, dated 4. 2004 has reconveyed certain extent of land in favour of similarly situated persons like the respondents 1 to 3 herein, measuring an extent of 10.5 cents, which was acquired for the purpose of Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex and some other persons lands were also reconveyed as per the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.232, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 20.9.2002, taking into consideration the plight of the land owners therein. The above facts exposed by the respondents 1 to 3, bring to fore the fact that other persons lands were already exempted from the purview of the land acquisition proceedings and since the land where the respondents 1 to 3 are living is their only shelter, the same analogy/principle would also apply to the case of the poor Harijan persons like the respondents 1 to 3 herein and their land also need to be exempted from the acquisition proceedings since the land already acquired from them itself is lying waste. 14. As has been rightly held by a Division Bench of this Court in Director of School Education, Madras and Others Vs. V. Gnanaraj and Another [AIR 1992 Madras 124], Courts can take into consideration the subsequent events for giving reliefs in furtherance of justice and therefore, we find every force in the case of the respondents 1 to 3. 15. As has been rightly held by a Division Bench of this Court in Director of School Education, Madras and Others Vs. V. Gnanaraj and Another [AIR 1992 Madras 124], Courts can take into consideration the subsequent events for giving reliefs in furtherance of justice and therefore, we find every force in the case of the respondents 1 to 3. 15. Since from the materials placed on record, we are able to see that major portion of the property of the respondents 1 to 3, measuring an extent of 68 cents has already been acquired by the appellants and left the said land unused till date and the Award amounts are also not paid and further, most part of the lands in the present acquisition proceedings are also exempted/reconveyed to the land owners and further taking into consideration the indisputable fact that the respondents 1 to 3 are the poor Harijans and they do not have any other land except the one in question and living in the said land by constructing a house, we have no hesitation to hold that the land of the respondents 1 to 3 also should be exempted from the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the part of the order of the learned single Judge thereby granting liberty to the respondents therein to proceed afresh with the land acquisition proceedings in accordance with law is set aside, since we find no reason to initiate fresh proceedings as the lands already acquired from the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 themselves are lying unused by the appellants. With the above observation and for all the above discussions, we find no merit in this writ appeal and accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.