Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the fourth respondent in Letter No.Na.Ka.No.01/2011 Alagu 2, dated 11.04.2012 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently directing the respondents to allot an alternate site to the petitioner company as envisaged in the orders passed in the Writ Petitions viz., W.P.Nos.17850 to 17852 of 2009 dated 28.1.2010 as well as W.P.Nos.30221 of 2007 dated 2.2.2012 and also in W.P.No.28268 of 2011. 2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 to 5 and Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The impugned proceeding is a notice issued by the Special Tahsildar calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Special Tahsildar, Irungattukottai Extension Scheme, Alagu-2, Sriperumbudur, produce relevant documents and put signature in the relevant agreement so as grant compensation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been repeatedly requested the Government for providing alternate site in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex.4. The learned single Judge (P.JOTHIMANI,J.) while disposing of the batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10918, 26183, 26430 of 2008, 17850 to 17852 of 2009, 30570 and 30221 of 2007, 9348, 9349, 12611, 13250 to 13254, 13799 to 13304, 13041 to 13043, 16942, 20442, 21335, 12677 to 12683, 18451 to 20433 of 2008 and 13549 of 2009 by order dated 28.1.2010 has observed as follows:- “29. However, in some of the cases where large extent of lands have been purchased by some of the writ petitioners with an idea of putting up an industry, it cannot be said to be against the very purport of Act 10 of 1999 and in respect of those cases, while it is true that it is ultimately for the respondents to decide after formation of the industrial area to give it to individual entrepreneurs on the basis of merit, at the same time, it is incumbent on the Government to consider any legitimate claim made by such writ petitioners for allotment of alternate sites for establishing their industry and certainly such genuine claims by individual petitioners should be considered in proper perspective. Therefore, it is made clear that such cases may be considered by the Government taking note of the larger interest of the industrial development of the State, by providing alternate site in other place than the present place of acquisition to the individual petitioners, who genuinely seek to put up an industry. In view of the same it is always open to such of the petitioners as stated above to make proper representations to the State Government as well as the SIPCOT for providing alternate place, in which case it is for the Government to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.” 4. Petitioner made several representations and filed another writ petition W.No.28268 of 2011 against the State of Tamil Nadu and Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT which came to be disposed of on 2.2.2012. The specific order is only against the Government and the SIPCOT holding as follows:- “9. In view of the limited relief prayed for in this writ, there is no necessity to decide the question of compensation. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to collect the deposited compensation, as per its entitlement by approaching the Collector in accordance with law. 10. This writ petition is disposed of, by directing respondents to take final decision on the request made by the petitioner for allotment of land in pursuance to the observation of this Court, while disposing of the writ petitions, challenging the acquisition. 11. The respondents are directed to pass a detailed speaking order on the representation, giving details for its acceptance or rejection as the case may be.” 5. In para 9 of the above order dated 2.2.2102 petitioner was given liberty to collect compensation as per his entitlement by approaching the Collector as per law. Insofar as alternate site is concerned, in para 10 it is stated that it is for the Government to decide.7. In such view of the matter, the order already passed clearly provides for determining the compensation payable. The order passed by VINOD K.SHARMA,J. (W.P.No.28268 of 2011 dated 2.2.2012) entitles the authority to decide and pay the compensation and the present impugned notice is only in accordance with the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.10918 of 2008 batch dated 28.1.2010. The present writ petition is, therefore, totally misconceived.8. The order passed by VINOD K.SHARMA,J. (W.P.No.28268 of 2011 dated 2.2.2012) entitles the authority to decide and pay the compensation and the present impugned notice is only in accordance with the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.10918 of 2008 batch dated 28.1.2010. The present writ petition is, therefore, totally misconceived.8. Petitioner has already obtained an order in W.P.No.28268 of 2011, insofar as the allotment of alternate site is concerned, therefore, the relief sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.