Judgment :- 1. As the issue involved in all the above Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up for disposal by a common order. 2. Heard Mr.V.Chandrakanthan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.30854 and 5118 of 2012; Mr.K.Sakthivel, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.34154 of 2012 and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3.1. Desikanandapuram Adi-Dravidar Co-operative House Site Society Limited, (in short 'Society') the petitioner in W.P.No.30854 of 2012, was founded on 11.01.1962 with an object to provide house sites and allot to the poor landless Adi-Dravidars on co-operative basis with financial assistance from the Government. There are 130 members in the society, who are houseless poor Adi-Dravidars. On 26.07.1963, they requested the Government to acquire land to provide house sites for their members, as they are struggling without any house sites. The Government of Tamil Nadu through Adi-Dravidar Tribal Welfare Department acquired land to an extent of 60 grounds and 9 sq. feet comprised in Survey No.506/2 along with other properties in Perambur Village, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai District under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). 3.2. A notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 27.04.1989. After enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 27.06.1990 and award was passed in Award No.3/92, dted 26.06.1992. As per G.O.Ms.No.830, Adi-Dravidar Tribal Welfare Department, dated 30.05.1989 issued by the 1st respondent, the Society paid its share of the cost of land amounting to Rs.4,64,393/- @ Rs.6,350/- per ground including 30% solatium on the actual value of the land. The Society was informed that they have to pay the cost of 1/5th share and the remaining 4/5th cost shall be availed as loan by their Society. Accordingly, the members of the Society deposited a sum of Rs.95,000/- being 1/5th cost and the remaining 4/5th share amounting to Rs.3,71,514.40 was availed as a loan repayable to the Government in 10 years. The loan was repaid subsequently with interest to the Deputy Registrar, Housing, Madras and No Due Certificate was issued on 09.04.1999 and thus, the Society has paid the entire amount due and payable to the Government of Tamil Nadu for the allotment of house sites to its members. 3.3. The loan was repaid subsequently with interest to the Deputy Registrar, Housing, Madras and No Due Certificate was issued on 09.04.1999 and thus, the Society has paid the entire amount due and payable to the Government of Tamil Nadu for the allotment of house sites to its members. 3.3. The land acquisition proceedings was initiated on 07.06.1989 to acquire land to an extent of 56 grounds and 814 sq. ft. against the Society's request of 60 grounds and 9 sq. feet. The Society paid the amount as directed by the Government of Tamil Nadu as per G.O.Ms.No.830, dated 30.05.1989. The value of the land was fixed under the Award No.3/92, dated 26.06.1992 at Rs.41,67,020/-. After excluding the land not acquired, the actual value comes to a sum of Rs.39,99,375/-. Further, as per interest and solatium, the total amount fixed by the authorities comes to Rs.1,21,58,347/-. 3.4. The 2nd respondent, by a letter dated 03.01.2007, submitted the report through the Special Commissioner, Land Administration stating that the land was acquired for the members of the Society and the Society had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.24,50,412/- and suggested that the Government should pay the remaining amount of Rs.97,07,935/- and requested for sanction for the said amount by the Government. The 3rd respondent, by his letter dated 31.12.2009 had informed the 2nd respondent reiterating that the Society had agreed to pay Rs.24,50,412/-. Inspite of the said recommendation by respondents 2 and 3, the 1st respondent, in his letter dated 22.04.2009, directed the 2nd respondent to submit a fresh report regarding payment of compensation by the Government. Considering the circumstances and recommendations, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 27.04.2009 recommending the Government to bear the remaining compensation of Rs.97,07,935/-. Inspite of the said letter by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent again called upon the 2nd respondent to submit a fresh report. 3.5. In the year 1989, the cost of the land was very low and the same was fixed at Rs.6,390/- per ground by the Government. The members of the Society have paid the cost of the land and the liability to pay the extra amount arrived at due to the increase in the cost of the land is because of the delay on the part of the Government and they are not liable to pay the same. 3.6. The members of the Society have paid the cost of the land and the liability to pay the extra amount arrived at due to the increase in the cost of the land is because of the delay on the part of the Government and they are not liable to pay the same. 3.6. On 08.08.2006, one former Director of the Society, viz., Mr.Velayutham obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the 1st respondent that his request for early allotment was referred to the 2nd respondent. Further, the Deputy Secretary, Mr.K.Sachitanandam, by his letter dated 19.04.2007 informed the Society the communication sent to the Land Administration Officer, which reveals that the Government is under consideration for the payment of Rs.97,07,935/-. The 3rd respondent, by his letter dated 31.12.2009 informed the 2nd respondent that the Society is ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.24,50,412/- to enable the 2nd respondent to hand over the land. 3.7. Further, Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.3430 and 3491 of 1991 filed by the land owners (subsequent purchasers) were dismissed on 04.08.1999 and Writ Appeal Nos.1374 and 1375 of 2002 were also dismissed on 05.03.2004. The Civil Suit filed by Mr.Pandara Nadar and another in O.S.No.5201 of 2007 before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai was also dismissed on 22.07.2010. The Writ Petition filed by Mr.J.Prabhakaran in W.P.No.9165 of 1992 was dismissed on 16.09.1999 and no proceedings are pending against the acquisition of the land. Once award is passed under the Land Acquisition Act, the land will automatically be vested with the Government, but, the Government is dragging the proceedings without taking steps effectively to hand over the land to the members of the Society, as promised by them. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents to hand over the land acquired as per the Award passed by the 3rd respondent/Tahsildar, the Society has come up before this Court. 4.1. One K.P.Velayutham, former Director of Desikanandapuram Co-operative House Site Society, has filed W.P.No.5118 of 2012, stating that the Deputy Secretary, by his letter dated 19.04.2007 informed him about the communication sent to the Special Commissioner, Land Administration, which reveals that the Government has taken into consideration the payment of Rs.97,07,935/-. 4.1. One K.P.Velayutham, former Director of Desikanandapuram Co-operative House Site Society, has filed W.P.No.5118 of 2012, stating that the Deputy Secretary, by his letter dated 19.04.2007 informed him about the communication sent to the Special Commissioner, Land Administration, which reveals that the Government has taken into consideration the payment of Rs.97,07,935/-. The Tahsildar, Pursawalkam-Perambur Taluk, vide letter dated 31.12.2009 informed the District Collector that the society is ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.24,50,412/- to enable the Collector to hand over the land and that the land in Survey No.506/2 is a Ceiling land. The District Collector under the Right to Information Act, communicated the copy of the letter dated 12.03.2010 stating that the land in Survey No.506/2 in an extent of 2 cawnies, 9 grounds, 2037 sq. ft. is a Ceiling Land and no compensation need to be paid to the land owner. The Collector, by his letter dated 19.03.2009 informed the Secretary that compensation need not be paid for the land in Survey No.506/2. Further, the Tahsildar, by his letter dated 09.06.2010 informed the Collector that the amount of Rs.24,50,412/- payable by the Society has been deposited in the name of the District Collector. 4.2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Land Administration, by his letter dated 16.04.2008 had informed the Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department that the interest/penal interest could be subsidized by the Government under a scheme and that the Government is distributing House Sites at free of cost to Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes. 4.3. To their shock and surprise, the District Collector, on 28.10.2010, without considering the payments made by the Society and the proceedings initiated before this Court, recommended to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, stating that the members of the Society are not in a position to pay the dues as per the Award No.3, dated 26.06.1992 and therefore to withdraw the acquisition proceedings. Immediately, the petitioner, i.e. the former Director of the Society made a representation on 09.10.2010 to the respondents herein stating that the Society is willing to pay its share of Rs.24,50,412/- and the same was deposited to the account and requested the Government to hand over the land to the members of the Society. Immediately, the petitioner, i.e. the former Director of the Society made a representation on 09.10.2010 to the respondents herein stating that the Society is willing to pay its share of Rs.24,50,412/- and the same was deposited to the account and requested the Government to hand over the land to the members of the Society. The 1st respondent, on 16.10.2010, issued a letter to the District Collector stating that she sent two reports, one dated 19.03.2009 recommending to hand over the land and another impugned letter dated 28.10.2010 recommending to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings and call for reports from the District Collector. Seeking to quash the impugned letter dated 28.10.2010, the former Director of the Society has approached this Court. 5.1. One R.Kishore Kumar, as the Power of Attorney holder of one P.Vagtavarmal Pandya and his wife Kamala Devi has filed W.P.No.34154 of 2012, seeking to quash the Notification, dated 27.06.1990 issued under Section 6 Declaration by the 1st respondent followed by the Award passed by the 3rd respondent in Award No.3 of 1992, dated 26.06.1992, insofar as it relates to the 1st petitioner's land comprised in S.No.506/2 (Part F) for an extent of 9 Grounds and 270 sq. ft. and 2nd petitioner's land comprised in S.No.506/2 (Part F) for an extent of 5 Grounds and 1200 sq. ft. situated in Pursawalkam, Perambur Taluk, Perambur Village, Chennai District. 5.2. It is his case that the suit property admeasuring 14 grounds and 1951 sq. ft. bearing S.No.506/2 Part F situated at No.141/1 Ambedhkar Road, Vysarpadi, Chennai 600 039 belonged to the petitioners 1 and 2, namely, P.Vagtavarmal Pandya and Kamala Devi in W.P.No.34154 of 2012. On 24.09.1980, the 1st petitioner purchased 7 grounds 270 sq. ft. from one Mrs.Dhanalakshmi Ammal and her 3 daughters under Reg. Doc.No.1778/80. Mrs.Duraisamy Ammal and her 3 sons sold 2 grounds to the 1st petitioner herein under Reg. Doc.No.138/1981 and another 5 grounds to the 2nd petitioner herein under Doc.No.139/1981. From the date of purchase, petitioners 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying all statutory charges. The proceeding initiated under land ceiling was also withdrawn in K.Dis.2935/1983, dated 21.11.1984. 5.3. Doc.No.138/1981 and another 5 grounds to the 2nd petitioner herein under Doc.No.139/1981. From the date of purchase, petitioners 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying all statutory charges. The proceeding initiated under land ceiling was also withdrawn in K.Dis.2935/1983, dated 21.11.1984. 5.3. The Society (4th respondent in W.P.No.34154 of 2012) requested to acquire the petitioners' land and hence a Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 27.04.1989 for the purpose of providing House Sites to the members of the Society. Section 6 Declaration of the Act was issued on 27.06.1990 and Award was passed in Award No.3/92, dated 20.06.1992. No notice was issued to the owners of the lands and therefore, Section 6 Declaration was challenged only on the aspect of not providing any opportunity to the owners in W.P.Nos.3430/1991 and 3491/1991 and this Court, by an order dated 04.08.1999 dismissed the Writ Petitions holding that opportunity was provided. Further, the Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.1374/2002 and 1375/2002 were also dismissed on 05.03.2004. But, no compensation was paid till date to the owners and the possession is also with the owners till now. 5.4. At the time of acquisition of the above lands, there were only 68 members in the year 1990 and all those members of the Society were Government Employees and their standard of living was above poverty line and definitely those members would not come under the category 'poor'. The Society made a request to acquire the lands as a requisitioning body coming within the definition of 'Company' as contemplated under the Act. But, the Society did not comply with G.O.Ms.No.1102, Revenue Department, dated 05.05.1978 by depositing the required funds along with a Form of Requisition. On such eventualities, the District Collector should not have proceeded with the Land Acquisition Proceedings. In spite of it, the lands were acquired by Section 6 Declaration issued on 27.06.1990. 5.5. It has been the consistent stand of the 2nd respondent/District Collector to drop the acquisition proceedings as the requisitioning body/Society has not deposited the required amount and most of the members of the Society are Government Employees and do not come under the purview of 'below poverty line'. 5.6. 5.5. It has been the consistent stand of the 2nd respondent/District Collector to drop the acquisition proceedings as the requisitioning body/Society has not deposited the required amount and most of the members of the Society are Government Employees and do not come under the purview of 'below poverty line'. 5.6. The Award was pronounced on 29.06.1992 amounting to Rs.41,67,020/-, but even prior to that, the ex-President of the Society, by his letter dated 26.06.1992 expressed their inability to raise the Award amount and requested the District Collector and Government to bear the entire amount by granting 50% as subsidy and 50% as interest free loan. But, such request of the Society was rejected by the District Collector vide proceedings dated 14.07.1995 for the reason that there were no precedents, there are no Schemes and most of the members were State and Central Government employees. Again, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration vide Letter No.M3/37165/2004, dated 11.04.2004 addressed to the Secretary, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, informed that the Award amount was Rs.41,67,020/-in the year 1992 and it was reiterated that the requisitioning body had to pay the above amount with 15% interest and such a huge amount could not be borne by the Government. Later, the District Collector, vide Letter No.J9/659/93, dated 03.01.2007 addressed to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has stated that a sum of Rs.1,21,58,347/- had to be deposited as compensation by the Society for the period upto 30.06.2006 for the entire extent of land acquired by the District Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer. In Office Proceedings Letter No.J9/659/93, dated 28.10.2010, the District Collector stated that the Society was not in a position to pay the Award amount. In turn, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, by his Letter dated 14.03.2011 has also recommended to drop the acquisition proceedings. Further, the accrued interest has also increased. 5.7. In the meanwhile, there were attempts by third parties to trespass into the land and to interfere with the possession of the petitioners; therefore, the petitioners preferred O.S.No.1476 of 2012 on the file of the 3rd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking injunction to restrain the third parties and subsequently, the same was withdrawn. 5.7. In the meanwhile, there were attempts by third parties to trespass into the land and to interfere with the possession of the petitioners; therefore, the petitioners preferred O.S.No.1476 of 2012 on the file of the 3rd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking injunction to restrain the third parties and subsequently, the same was withdrawn. According to the petitioners in this case, the land acquisition proceedings itself is vitiated, as the procedures contemplated under the Act has not been complied with and the respondents 1 to 3 ought to have considered that the Society is a Company and the acquisition should have been proceeded only after complying with the various proceedings as contemplated in Chapter VII of the Act. 6. The Collector, Chennai has filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows : 6.1. The petitioner Society requested the Government to acquire land to provide house sites for their members and accordingly, the Government acquired land to an extent of 02 Ca-05 Gr-0402 sq. feet (53 Gr 0402 sq. ft.) of land in S.No.506/2, 506/5, 506/21, 506/23, 506/31, 506/32, 506/33 and 506/34 of Perambur Village, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai District. Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 27.04.1989 and after enquiry under Section 5A of the Act on 27.06.1990, award was passed in Award No.3/92, dated 26.06.1992. 6.2. The Co-operative Sub Registrar/Special Officer of the Society had sent the list of members of the Society vide their letter dated 06.08.1994, wherein it has been mentioned that most of the members of the Society are Central and State Government employees having average monthly income from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- at that point of time and the remaining members were also employed in reputed private concerns. The Society has not paid the award amount even from the initial period of the land acquisition proceedings till date. W hen no award amount has been paid, there is no way to hand over the acquired land and hence, the contention of the Society that the land has not been handed over till date, is denied. 6.3. In G.O.Ms.No.830, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, dated 30.05.1989, the Government considered the 4(1) proposals of the Collector for acquisition of an extent of 2Ca-8 Gr-0814 sq. ft. 6.3. In G.O.Ms.No.830, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, dated 30.05.1989, the Government considered the 4(1) proposals of the Collector for acquisition of an extent of 2Ca-8 Gr-0814 sq. ft. in R.S.No.506/2, 506/5, 506/21, 506/23, 506/31, 506/32, 506/33 and 506/34 of Perambur Village, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, for the provision of house sites to the Adi-Dravidar members of the Society at the estimated cost of the lands at Rs.4,64,393/- at the rate of Rs.6,350/- per ground including 30% solatium on the actual value of the land. The Government also considered the report of the Collector that towards 1/5th cost of the lands, the member-beneficiaries of the Society have already deposited Rs.95,000/- and 4/5th of the land cost amounting to Rs.3,71,514.40 may be sanctioned to the said Society as loan repayable to the Government in 10 years. In the above Government Order, the Government also ordered that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is authorized to draw the loan amount sanctioned and disburse it to the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) for effecting payment to the land owners after passing of the award. Moreover in the said Government Order, the Government has also directed that the balance of the land cost of acquisition of the lands, if any, over and above the loan amount should be met by the members of the Society from their contribution. 6.4. As specified in the Government Order, the land cost per ground is Rs.6,350/- is only an estimated cost and it is not the award cost per ground or final cost per ground. In this connection, Award No.3/92, dated 26.06.1992 was passed as Rs.41,67,020/- for the extent of 56 Gr. 814 sq. ft. in R.S.No.506/2, 506/5, 506/21, 506/23, 506/31, 506/32, 506/33 and 506/34 of Perambur Village, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk for the provision of house sites to the Adi-Dravidars members of the Society as Award cost, which has not been paid in full by the Society till date. 6.5. The payment made by the Society as mentioned in the Award under the Head of Funds, is detailed below: Sl.No. Date of Sanction details Payment details Amount in Rupees. payment Rs.10,000/- Requisition Body remitted in RBI vide - As per G.O.11 Chalan No.01941/2 1 2-6-1988 AD TW, dated dated 06.10.1988 26.03.1991 Out of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.4,310/- incurred Balance towards payment of Rs.5,690/- advertisement charges Sanctioned as loan vide Rs.3,71,514/-remitted G.O.D.No.11,Adiin RBI vide Challan 2 2. payment Rs.10,000/- Requisition Body remitted in RBI vide - As per G.O.11 Chalan No.01941/2 1 2-6-1988 AD TW, dated dated 06.10.1988 26.03.1991 Out of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.4,310/- incurred Balance towards payment of Rs.5,690/- advertisement charges Sanctioned as loan vide Rs.3,71,514/-remitted G.O.D.No.11,Adiin RBI vide Challan 2 2. 4-4-1991 Rs.3,71,514/- Dravidar and No.12213/2, dated Tribal Welfare, 28.04.1991 dt. 26.03.1991 Total amount available as per award Rs.3,77,204/- 6.6. With regard to the averment of the Society, the District Collector has stated that the amount of Rs.95,000/-as mentioned by the Society in their affidavit being the 1/5th of the land cost has not been discussed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award. Though the Society has requested to acquire 60 grounds and 9 sq. ft., only 56 grounds and 814 sq. ft. of land have been acquired in Award No.3/92. The notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 27.04.1989 and no objection was raised by the Society at that time of notification. 6.7. In G.O.Ms.No.830, dated 30.05.1989, the estimated cost of land at Rs.4,64,393/-for an extent of 56 Gr 814 sq. ft. in R.S.No.506/2, 506/5, 506/21, 506/23, 506/31, 506/32, 506/33 and 506/34 of Perambur Village, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk has been mentioned and that the Society has paid the amount. As per Award No.3/92, dated 26.06.1992, the Award amount is Rs.41,67,020/-. Even though the petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.4,64,393/- as per G.O.No.830, dated 30.05.1980, it is an admitted fact of the Society that the Award amount is Rs.41,67,020/-. 6.8. As per the court order, an extent of 2 G 076 sq. ft. of land is exempted from the Land Acquisition proceedings and the award amount is reduced from Rs.41,67,020/-to Rs.39,98,375/-. Hence, as per the Act, the compensation amount to be paid to the owners is arrived at Rs.39,98,375/-. As on 30.06.2006, with interest and penal interest, the Award amount works out to Rs.1,21,58,347/-. Moreover, the interest from 01.07.2006 till date is also to be calculated and fixed for payment by the Society. 6.9. Hence, as per the Act, the compensation amount to be paid to the owners is arrived at Rs.39,98,375/-. As on 30.06.2006, with interest and penal interest, the Award amount works out to Rs.1,21,58,347/-. Moreover, the interest from 01.07.2006 till date is also to be calculated and fixed for payment by the Society. 6.9. With regard to the averment in paragraph 10, it is submitted that the Government, in Letter No.23740/LA1, Adi Dravidar Department, dated 07.01.2005 addressed to the Collector, has requested to report the details of total Award amount including penal interest to be collected from the Society and the Collector in Letter No.J9/659/1993, dated 03.01.2007 addressed to the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land Administration has reported that a sum of Rs.1,21,58,347/- has to be deposited as compensation by the Society for the period upto 30.06.2006 and that the Society has accepted to pay Rs.24,50,412/- as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.97,07,935/- may be borne by the Government. The Government, in Letter No.23740/LA1/2001-16 Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 15.09.2006 addressed to the Commissioner of Land Administration, has requested to send remarks on the balance amount of Rs.97,07,935/- to be borne by the Government. In reply to this, the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land Administration, in his Letter No.M2/2745/2008, dated 16.04.2008 observed that the original Award amount may be borne by the Society and other interest/penal interest could be subsidized by the Government under Scheme and that at present, Government is distributing house sites at free cost to SC/ST people. 6.10. Though the District Collector, in his letter dated 03.01.2007 has reported to the Government that out of the total Award amount calculated with accrued interest which amounts to Rs.1,21,58,347/-, the Society has accepted to pay a part of the Award amount i.e. Rs.24,50,412/- and that the Government may consider to sanction the remaining amount of Rs.97,07,935/- to the Society. 6.11. The District Collector and the Tahsildar have sent proposals to the Government for sanction of Rs.97,07,935/- towards the Award amount, which is to be paid by the Society. 6.11. The District Collector and the Tahsildar have sent proposals to the Government for sanction of Rs.97,07,935/- towards the Award amount, which is to be paid by the Society. Since the decision is to be taken by the Government, considering the report of the Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land Administration, in Letter No.M2/2745/2008, dated 16.04.2008, wherein, it has been observed that original award may be borne by the Society and other interest/penal interest could be subsidized, the Government has requested the District Collector to send fresh report in the above issue. 7. Mr.V.Chandrakanthan, learned counsel for the Society and the former Director of the Society, would contend that the respondents failed to appreciate that the Society had paid its share to the Government as per the Award and they ought to have appreciated that the Society is willing to deposit its share of Rs.24,50,412/- in the account of the 2nd respondent to enable him pay the same to the land owners. It is his further contention that the 2nd respondent erred in not appreciating the fact that the members of the Society are suffering without house sites for the past 50 years. 8. On the other hand, Mr.K.Sakthivel, learned counsel for the petitioners/land owners would contend that the Society is a Company under the Land Acquisition Act and hence, the respondents 1 to 3 ought to have followed the procedures contemplated under Chapter VII of the Act. He would strenuously contend that the members of the Society are Government employees and thus, such members of the Society cannot be termed as poor and there is no public purpose in the impugned acquisition proceedings. It is also his contention that respondents 1 to 3 ought to have complied with Section 41 of the Act by requiring the Society to enter into an Agreement with the appropriate Government. 9. Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, highlighting the letter of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 16.04.2008 to the Government, wherein, it is observed that the Original Award amount may be borne by the Society and other interest/penal interest could be subsidized by the Government, would submit that the petitioner Society has accepted to pay a part of the Award amount of Rs.24,50,412/- and that sanction of the remaining amount of Rs.97,07,935/- to the Society is pending for consideration by the Government. 10. 10. have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. Desikanandapuram Adi-Dravidar Co-operative House Site Society Ltd., i.e. the Society has made a claim to the respondents to hand over the land acquired as per the Award No.3/92, dated 26.06.1992. The former Director of the Society, namely, K.P.Velayutham, having paid the award amount on the value fixed by the respondents, has questioned the order of the District Collector, dated 28.10.2010. On the other hand, the subsequent purchasers, have, in totality, questioned the acquisition proceedings itself. 12. It is seen that the Society, with a strength of 130 members, who are houseless poor Adi-Dravidars, have requested the Government to provide house sites for them as they are struggling without any house sites. The Government of the Tamil Nadu through the 1st respondent has decided to acquire the land to an extent of 60 grounds and 9 sq. feet comprised in Survey No.506/2 along with other properties in Perambur Village, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, Chennai District under the Act. Pursuant thereto, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 27.04.1989 and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held. Thereafter, declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 27.06.1990 and award was passed in Award No.3/92, dated 26.06.1992. As per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.830, the Society paid its share of the cost of the land amounting to Rs.4,64,393/- @ Rs.6,350/- per ground including 30% solatium on the actual value of the land. As informed, the members of the Society deposited a sum of Rs.95,000/- being 1/5th cost and the remaining 4/5th share amounting to Rs.3,71,514/40 was availed as a loan repayable to the Government in 10 years. The loan was repaid by them subsequently with interest to the Deputy Registrar, Housing, Madras and No Due Certificate was issued on 09.04.1999 and thus, the Society paid the entire amount due and payable to the Government of Tamil Nadu for the allotment of house sites to its members. 13. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated on 27.04.1989 to acquire the land for the members of the Society. 13. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated on 27.04.1989 to acquire the land for the members of the Society. The District Collector, vide letter dated 03.01.2007, submitted a Report through the Special Commissioner, Land Administration stating that the land was acquired for the members of the Society and the Society has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.24,50,412/- and suggested that the Government should pay the remaining amount of Rs.97,07,935/- and requested for sanction of the same amount by the Government. while so, the Tahsildar, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk, by his letter dated 31.12.2009, informed the District Collector, reiterating that the Society had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.24,50,412/-. Despite the said recommendation by the District Collector and the Tahsildar, the 1st respondent-Government, vide letter dated 22.04.2009 directed the District Collector to submit a fresh report regarding payment of compensation by the Government. Subsequently, on 27.04.2009, the District Collector passed an order recommending the Government to bear the remaining compensation of Rs.97,07,935/-. In spite of the said letter, again, the 1st respondent-Government called upon the District Collector to submit a fresh report. 14. By then, the Society repeatedly requested the respondents to hand over the land to them. It is also noticed that a portion of the land in S.No.506/2 is considered as a Ceiling land and the case is under the purview of the Ceiling Land Act. Therefore, the Collector, by his letter dated 19.03.2009 informed the Secretary to Government that compensation need not be paid for the land to an extent of 2 Cawnies, 9 grounds and 2037 sq. ft. in Survey No.506/2. Further, the Tahsildar, by his letter dated 09.06.2010 informed the Collector that the amount of Rs.24,50,412/- payable by the Society has been deposited in the name of the district Collector. By a letter dated 16.04.2008, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Land Administration, informed the Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department that the interest/penal interest could be subsidized by the Government under a scheme and that the Government is distributing House Sites at free of cost to Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes. 15. While that being the position, the District Collector, on 28.10.2010, without considering the payments made by the Society and the Scheme for providing house sites, for which purpose, acquisition has been initiated and on completion of other procedures, an award has been passed. 15. While that being the position, the District Collector, on 28.10.2010, without considering the payments made by the Society and the Scheme for providing house sites, for which purpose, acquisition has been initiated and on completion of other procedures, an award has been passed. Thereafter, the Society, has also paid a sum of Rs.4,64,393/- at the rate of Rs.6,350/- per ground including 30% solatium on the actual value of the land. Further, the Society has informed the respondents repeatedly about their willingness to pay the balance amount of Rs.24,50,412/- as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.97,07,935/- has to be borne by the Government. But, to their shock, the District Collector, vide letter dated 28.10.2010, recommended to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, stating that the members of the Society are not in a position to pay the dues as per the Award No.3, dated 26.06.1992 and recommended to withdraw the acquisition proceedings immediately. Pursuant thereto, the former Director of the Society made a representation on 09.10.2010 to the respondents herein stating that the Society is willing to pay its share of Rs.24,50,412/-with a request to hand over the land to the members of the Society. Be that as it may, the fact remains that while the District Collector sent a report, dated 19.03.2009 recommending to the Government to hand over the land to the Society, the very same District Collector, by the impugned letter dated 28.10.2010, recommended for withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings, contrary to her own earlier decision. 16. Article 46 of the Constitution of India contemplates promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections, which is to the effect that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. To achieve the above Constitutional goal, to promote the economic condition of the weaker section of the society, when the Government is endowed with an object of providing shelter to the needy and underprivileged, poor and landless, such a right has to be secured to all the citizens including the members of the Society herein, by initiating acquisition proceedings. 17. To achieve the above Constitutional goal, to promote the economic condition of the weaker section of the society, when the Government is endowed with an object of providing shelter to the needy and underprivileged, poor and landless, such a right has to be secured to all the citizens including the members of the Society herein, by initiating acquisition proceedings. 17. When a number of schemes and measures have been formulated by the Government with an aim to bring the underprivileged sections of the society to the mainstream of life and the powers thereto are delegated to the authorities, the said authorities have to implement the said schemes, as contemplated. In other words, an officer entrusted with a scheme at the helm of affairs, has an obligation to implement such a scheme to bring such sections of the society to the mainstream of life and to achieve the egalitarian order of the society guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and such objective has to be achieved through the directive principles of state policy under Article 46 of the Constitution. 18. That being the clear Constitutional position, unfortunately, what has happened in the instant case is, the District Collector has taken a stand to defeat the very object of the above principles and provisions of the Act and the Constitution. This is a clear case of the executive not keeping his obligations in implementing the policy of the Government, whereby, the authorities, according to their whims and fancies, with an ulterior motive, have gone further to defeat not only the objective sought to be achieved but with an intention to afford the benefits of such a scheme to other persons, who are not eligible. This is one such classical case before this Court where the District Collector acted in a manner contrary to the principles. Therefore, the Government has to review such matters and ensure that the authorities shall discharge their duties with a sense of obligation and responsibility in order to enforce the schemes of this nature, for the welfare of the underprivileged classes. 19. The State authorities and all stakeholders in this regard have not given any much value to the scheme of the Act. 19. The State authorities and all stakeholders in this regard have not given any much value to the scheme of the Act. If there is a failure of the scheme and the public authorities are not in a spirit to implement the scheme, then it is meaningless to have such a scheme without implementation by the State. Therefore, the State has to make endeavours to achieve the constitutional goal and the State Policy. 20. In the case on hand, a Scheme has been framed for implementation of the policy of the Government to augment certain promotional benefits, viz., providing house sites to poor Adi Dravidars and such a policy was implemented by the State authorities by initiating proceedings for acquiring the land and an Award has also been passed. The members of the Society having paid 1/5th share towards the cost of the land, have requested the Government to bear the remaining 4/5th cost of the land by the Department concerned, by way of representations. It is seen that the request of the Society for providing house sites to their members has not been heeded to by the authorities concerned, thereby, the benefits guaranteed under the Constitution for the weaker section of the people, particularly, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, have been deprived. The act of the District Collector, recommending withdrawal of acquisition proceedings, is not only unconstitutional, but ultra vires the provisions of the Act, for the reason that there is no scope for any authority to recommend for withdrawal of acquisition proceedings except for the purpose contemplated. The Act clearly contemplates that, once acquisition is made and award is passed, no authority is empowered to withdraw the acquisition proceedings, unless the Government recommends change in the Policy to defeat the acquisition. 21. The recommendation of the District Collector in the instant case, by passing the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 in Lr.No.J9/659/3, in the eye of law, cannot be sustained and, therefore, the same is set aside. Following the same, the respondents are directed to hand over the land in question to the Society within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on their undertaking to make payment as agreed upon. Following the same, the respondents are directed to hand over the land in question to the Society within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on their undertaking to make payment as agreed upon. In case of any difficulty for the Society in making payment and if any request is made by the Society for payment in installments, it is for the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. 22. As far as the prayer of the petitioners in W.P.No.34154 of 2012 seeking to quash the acquisition proceedings under Section 6 Declaration dated 27.06.1990, is concerned, it is for the petitioners, who are the subsequent purchasers of a part of the land in question to prove their possession by producing proper documents in respect of their claim, in which event, the authority concerned shall look into the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as far as their claim for compensation, if any. 23. In fine, W.P.No.30854 of 2012 filed by the Society and W.P.No.5118 of 2012 filed by the former Director of the Society, are allowed with the above direction and observations. Consequently, W.P.No.34154 of 2012 filed by the subsequent purchasers, stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. As the petitioners in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.30854 of 2012 and M.P.No.3 of 2012 in W.P.No.5118 of 2012 are already parties to the Writ Petition in W.P.No.34154 of 2012, their prayer for impleadment as respondents in the other writ petitions does not arise for consideration.