Judgment :- This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the objections of the petitioners dated 15.11.2010 to the notice of the fourth respondent dated 2.11.2010 passed in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.A/12/10 with regard to acquisition of the petitioners land for construction of bye-pass road and in the light of the report of the third respondent sent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.6332/2010 A7 dated 21.07.2011. 2. Ms. V.M. Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In respect of acquisition of property for the formation of a bye-pass road by the State Highways Department, notice under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 and Rules 2003, was issued on 2.11.2010 to the owners of the land, which includes the first petitioner's husband by name Sundaram. It appears that the first petitioner's husband Sundaram expired on 15.10.2009 much before notice was issued on 2.11.2010. However, the wife along with husband's brother submitted objection on 15.11.2010. Proof of submitting such objection has not been submitted before this court. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioners now rely upon the correspondence between the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector dated 21.7.2011 to address their grievance that there should be a minor change in the bye-pass road in respect of one portion of the property. 5. This plea is objected to by the learned Special Government Pleader stating that the correspondence is between the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector and some action said to have already been taken pursuant to the acquisition of land for the formation of bye-pass road under the State Highways Act. Therefore, there is no significance in the letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer addressed to the District Collector except persuasive value in that matter. 6. In view of the above, the fourth respondent is at liberty to consider the recommendation of the Revenue Divisional Officer if it is permissible under law. No positive direction is issued by this Court and the discretion to consider the claim of the petitioners is with the fourth respondent. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.