Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order of the fourth respondent (the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravida Welfare Department, Vellore), dated 22.07.2009 and for a consequential direction to desist from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of 0.28.0 hectares of land in S.No.287/7A in Kandaneri Village. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is the son of one Sivalinga Gounder. The land in question was sought to be acquired under the Tamil Nadu Act, 31/78 for providing cremation ground for Adi Dravidars in Kandaneri village. After following due procedures, it was acquired by a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the said Act and an award in Award No.21/96-97, dated 23. 1997 was passed. In the village records the lands were also classified as Adi Dravidar Cremation ground. 4. The petitioners father filed a writ petition being W.P.No.14191 of 1997 on 19. 1997. The said writ petition was dismissed by this court on 17. 2000. No further appeal was filed. The petitioner, thereafter, came forward to file another writ petition before this court being W.P.No.23298 of 2008, stating that due procedure was not followed and the lands were sought to be acquired without any justification. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that he should not be disturbed without due process of law, by a final order, dated 29. 2008. It was thereafter the present order came to be passed, stating that the petitioner should remove the encroachments from the land belonging to the Government in S.No.287/7A, failing which appropriate action will be taken. The petitioner has challenged the said notice in this writ petition. 5. The case of the petitioner was that his father, who was the owner of the land, had executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner on 110. 2003. Since then, he has been in absolute possession. A patta has also been issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. It was stated that under Section 16-A, the Collector was empowered to declare the gift as invalid. Since it has not been done, the impugned proceedings are illegal. It was also stated that if he was an encroacher, then the proceedings in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in 2005 (2) CTC 741 will have to be followed. 6. Since it has not been done, the impugned proceedings are illegal. It was also stated that if he was an encroacher, then the proceedings in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in 2005 (2) CTC 741 will have to be followed. 6. The contentions raised by the petitioner are without substance and contrary to law. He had admitted that the petitioners father was the owner and the land in question has also been taken over by the publication of final award in Award No.21/96-97, dated 23. 1997. The challenge to the Award was also repelled by this Court in W.P.No.14191 of 1997, dated 17. 2000. Even the petitioner has no right to deal with the land and the so-called gift given after passing of the award is not binding on any authority. .7. The contentions raised by the petitioner are totally without justification. In fact, the Dalit in the State of Tamil Nadu are waiting for certain ameliorative measures to be taken by the Government under the State Act. The provisions of the Act was stalled successfully by land owners until the law was found to be constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court in State of T.N. v. Ananthi Ammal reported in (1995) 1 SCC 519 . 8. Thereafter, a second round of litigation was brought with reference to the nature of order passed by various District Collectors. In this process, another 11 years were lost. The Full Bench of this Court vide its judgment in R.Pari Vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai and Another reported in 2006 3 Law Weekly 1000 held that such challenges must be rejected. 9. It is unthinkable of a person like the petitioner can keep on fighting such matters unmindful of legal provisions. Despite valid acquisition proceedings have been initiated and an award was passed against the petitioners father, the petitioner has been claiming to hold the land for the last 12 years. 10. The last argument that the public purpose was not achieved is clearly a mischievous, because it is the petitioner who is holding on to the land for the last 14 years, despite their being an acquisition under a valid legislation to provide lands for an Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme. 10. The last argument that the public purpose was not achieved is clearly a mischievous, because it is the petitioner who is holding on to the land for the last 14 years, despite their being an acquisition under a valid legislation to provide lands for an Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme. In the present case, the notification was issued for the purpose of providing cremation ground for Adi Dravidars in Kandaneri village and the petitioner cannot be allowed to thwart a social welfare scheme by continuously raiding on this court with series of writ petitions. It is rather sad to note that the dalits of the village were unable to get cremation ground even after 12 years after a valid notification was made. It also shows the lethargy on the part of the State in not taking quick steps to implement the scheme for which the acquisition was made. 11. A reference to Section 16A in the present proceedings has no relevance. The said section is a State amendment to the Central Act 1894. There is no analogous amendment to the Tamil Nadu Act 31/78. On the contrary, by virtue of Section 5 if any notification is issued under Section 4(1) and published in the District Gazette, the land to which the said notice is issued, shall from the date on which the notice was so published, vest absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances. .12. With reference to claims for possession of the land by the petitioner, it must be stated such a claim is illegal in the teeth of the Act. Further regarding the claim for possession, it is also necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Viswam (D) by Lrs reported in JT 1996 (2) SC 549. In that case, after considering the judgment in Narayan Bhagdes case, this Court observed that while taking possession of a large area of land (in this case 339 acres) a pragmatic and realistic approach had to be taken. Viswam (D) by Lrs reported in JT 1996 (2) SC 549. In that case, after considering the judgment in Narayan Bhagdes case, this Court observed that while taking possession of a large area of land (in this case 339 acres) a pragmatic and realistic approach had to be taken. This Court then examined the context under which the judgment in Narayan Bhagdes case had been rendered and held as under: ."It is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or Panchanama by the LAO in the presence of witnesses signed by him/them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. It is common knowledge that in some cases the owner/interested person may not cooperative in taking possession of the land." .13. The said judgment came to be quoted with approval and followed by the Supreme Court recently in Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi Vs. Lt.Governor, Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi and Others reported in JT 2009 (12) SC 324, where after referring to Viswams case (cited supra), in paragraph 9, it was observed as follows: ."9. It would, thus, be seen from a cumulative reading of the aforesaid judgments, that while taking possession of a large area of land with a large number of owners, it would be impossible for the Collector or the Revenue Official to enter each bigha or biswas and to take possession thereof and that a pragmatic approach has to be adopted by the Court. It is also clear that one of the methods of taking possession and handing it over to the beneficiary department is the recording of a Panchnama which can in itself constitute evidence of the fact that possession had been taken and the land had vested absolutely in the Government." 14. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to submit his explanation if any to the respondents. There is no impediment for the authority to utilize the land for the purpose for which it was acquired. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.