Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to acquire the petitioners land comprised in Natham R.S.Nos.355/19 and 355/20, Valayamadevi Kilpathi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District, under the relevant land acquisition proceedings and to pay compensation for the said lands, as per law. 2. The petitioners have stated that they are patta holders of natham lands in R.S.No.355 of Valayamadevi Kilpathi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District. The petitioners have made constructions in the said lands and they have also obtained electricity service connections. Further, they have been paying the house tax for their houses and their names have been enrolled in the electoral list. 3. It has been further stated that, subsequently, natham maniavari pattas had been issued during the Natham Survey Scheme, during the years 1992 to 1994 and new survey Nos.355/1 to 355/72, had been assigned to R.S.No.78/2. While so, the third respondent had issued show cause notices, in A4/3572/2003, dated 23.7.2004, and 20.8.2004, to the petitioners asking them as to why the pattas issued to them should not be cancelled. 4. The petitioners had sent a reply stating that, once a land has been declared as a natham, the Government has no right over the said property and that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, for a long time. However, the third respondent had cancelled the pattas issued to the petitioners, by way of a common order, in his proceedings No.A4/3572/2002, dated 24.9.2004, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners and without holding a proper enquiry. 5. Therefore, an appeal had been preferred before the second respondent District Revenue Officer. By his proceedings, dated 28.4.2006, the appeal had been allowed and the matter had been remitted back to the third respondent to conduct a proper enquiry by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Even before a proper enquiry had been conducted the first respodnent had initiated the land acquisition proceedings, under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, for the purpose of second mine expansion of the fifth respondent, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. Advance possession of the sub divisions, in R.S.Nos.355/1 to 355/72 had been taken, on 13.9.2008, by the first respondent. Under such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Advance possession of the sub divisions, in R.S.Nos.355/1 to 355/72 had been taken, on 13.9.2008, by the first respondent. Under such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Even though a counter affidavit had not been filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 13.9.2008, taking possession of the lands in question. Instead the petitioners have preferred a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to acquire the lands, comprised in R.S.Nos.355/19 and 355/20, Valayamadevi, Kilpathi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District, by following the procedures established by law. Such a prayer cannot be maintained since the petitioners have not established their rights, in respect of the lands in question and that no direction can be issued to the authorities concerned to acquire the lands, classified as natham lands. 7. Further, this Court had passed an order, dated 21.12.2009, in W.P.Nos.15824 and 17609 of 2009, wherein similar issues had arisen for its consideration. By the order, dated 21.12.2009, this Court had dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein stating that, when the pattas in the names of the petitioners had been cancelled and when the cancellation of the pattas had become final, it would not be open to the petitioners to seek the reliefs, as prayed for in the said writ petitions. Similarly, in the present case the petitioners are not entitled to pray for a writ of mandamus to be issued by this Court, to direct the first respondent to acquire the lands, comprised in R.S.Nos.355/19 and 355/20, Valayamadevi Kilpathi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District, by way of land acquisition proceedings, and to pay the compensation for the said lands, as per the relevant provisions of law. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsesls appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by them, in the present writ petition. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsesls appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by them, in the present writ petition. The petitioners have not been in a position to substantiate their claims that they are entitled to the pattas for the lands in question. Further, it is not for this Court to direct the first respondent to acquire the lands said to be belonging to the petitioners, since the petitioners have not been in a position to show that there is a legal obligation on the part of the first respondent to acquire the said lands. 9. Even if the lands in question are found to be belonging to the petitioners, a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to the first respondent to acquire such lands. It is for the first respondent to decide as to whether such lands are required for a public purpose and if so, it would be open to the first respondent to invoke the appropriate procedures established by law, for acquiring the lands. Further, if the lands have been taken over, as alleged by the petitioners, without following the due procedures established by law, it would be open to the petitioners to challenge such proceedings, in accordance with law. Further, in similar circumstances, this Court had passed an order, dated 21.12.2009, in W.P.Nos.15824 and 17609 of 2009, wherein certain similar issues had arisen for its consideration. As such, the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.