Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication in Na.Ka.A/813/2001 dated 5.8.2002 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to follow the due process of law. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent Special Tahsildar who by communication dated 5.8.2002 stated that for the purpose of construction of a hostel for Adi-Dravidar students, the petitioner's property has been acquired by direct negotiation. Therefore, the petitioner should come in person, register the document and take the amount payable for the property. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Petitioner states that he is a former Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and also a Chairman of the local Panchayat Union three times. He has donated three acres of land for the purpose of building hospitals in the year 1978. He also donated lands for building the local High School. He further donated 18 acres of land for the "Boodhan Movement". In March 2002, he donated 40 cents of land for building a hostel for the Backward Class students. Insofar as the acquisition of land for construction of hostel for Adi-dravida Students he has no objection if the authorities proceeded in accordance with the provisions of Act 31 of 78. 4. Petitioner states that due to his age and physical condition, he deputed his son to interact with the authorities. But the authorities acted unreasonably in the matter of fixing compensation. In ground(a) petitioner states that the fact of acquisition by private negotiation is not correct. In ground(b) he clearly states that he should not be compelled to part with his valuable property except in the manner known to law. He also states that none of the procedures prescribed by law has been followed. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed to set aside the said communication. 5. The writ petition was admitted and interim injunction was granted on 11.9.2002. So far no counter has been filed by both the respondents. In such view of the matter, the factual claim made by the petitioner remains undisputed and that being so, the respondents cannot force the petitioner to hand over the property without following the due process of law. 6. So far no counter has been filed by both the respondents. In such view of the matter, the factual claim made by the petitioner remains undisputed and that being so, the respondents cannot force the petitioner to hand over the property without following the due process of law. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings is set aside. No order as to costs.