Judgment :- D.MURUGESAN, J. 1. Both these appeals are at the instance of the owners of the lands comprised in R.S.No.18-17B to an extent of 0.29.0 hectares, R.S.No.17-8 to an extent of 0.33.0 hectare and R.S.No.17-10A to an extent of 0.08.0 hectares situated in Vakkur village, Chidambaram Taluk, South Arcot District. The above said lands are sought to be acquired under the provisions of Acquisition of lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as the Act), by a notification dated 9.2.1996. Admittedly, the land is shown as Government wet land in the notification and the notification was issued in the name of the Additional District Collector, Cuddalore. The acquisition proceedings were culminated into a proceeding for issue of an award. That proceeding was questioned on the ground that the lands being agricultural lands, cannot be acquired under the Act and in any event, the Additional Collector has no power under the Act to acquire the said lands by issuing notice under section 4(2) of the Act. 2. Both the writ petitions were allowed by holding that under the provisions of Section 4 (1), the District Collector alone is empowered to acquire the land, on he being satisfied for such acquisition and the satisfaction arrived by the Additional Collector and the consequential proceedings under section 4(1) is without jurisdiction. The above order is put in issue in these writ appeals. 3. Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that insofar as the challenge that the lands are agricultural lands is concerned, the objections were considered and they were over-ruled on the ground that very few coconut trees were planted and electricity connection for use of borewell was obtained only recently. Therefore, the said action of the land owners is only to frustrate the acquisition proceedings by contending that the lands are agricultural lands. He would draw our attention to the counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the lands are dry lands. Insofar as the power of the Additional Collector is concerned, the learned Special Government Pleader is not in a position to dispute the same as the notification itself had been admittedly issued in the name of the Additional Collector. 4. We have heard Mr.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Insofar as the power of the Additional Collector is concerned, the learned Special Government Pleader is not in a position to dispute the same as the notification itself had been admittedly issued in the name of the Additional Collector. 4. We have heard Mr.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. As the learned single Judge had dealt extensively only with the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to issue notification and had not gone into the question as to whether the lands are agricultural lands or not, we are inclined to consider only the submission in respect of those findings relating to the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to issue notification. 6. A Division Bench of this Court, wherein one of us (D.MURUGESAN, J.) was a party, in Jainabi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, ( 2006 (5) CTC 163 ), had elaborately considered the scope and power of the District Collector under section 4(1) and ultimately held that the said power is specifically conferred only on the District Collector and not on any other authority and had interfered with the acquisition proceedings. The said judgment was rendered with reference to the provisions of Sections 4 and 16 of the Act. 7. A subsequent Division Bench, wherein one of us (D.MURUGESAN, J.) was a party, in an unreported judgment in W.A.No.1103 of 2004 dated 26.11.2008 (E.Manjula vs. The Additional District Collector, Cuddalore) had considered the very same issue and had relied upon the above judgment in Jainabis case, referred supra and held that the Additional Collector has no power to invoke the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act to initiate acquisition proceedings. In fact, the very same view had earlier been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Tahsildar (LA) v. R.Manickammal, ( 2002 (2) CTC 1 ) and by a learned single Judge in Annavu Chettiar v. The District Revenue Officer, Villupuram (2004-1-L.W.271). 8. In view of the above consistent views of the Court as to the scope of the provisions of Section 4(1), which gives the power only to the District Collector and not to any other officer and in the absence of any such delegatory power, the proceedings initiated under the Act by the Additional Collector cannot be sustained in the eye of law. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.Ps. are also dismissed.