JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 18.01.2012, and to quash the same. 2. It has been stated that the first petitioner, along with one Rangaswamy, had purchased the land, bearing Survey No.479/6, in Thalavadi village, Erode District, by way of a sale deed, dated 29.11.1984. The said lands had been subjected to land acquisition proceedings, initiated by the first respondent, for the public purpose of constructing a regulated market in Thalavadi village. The said proceedings had been challenged by the land owners, by way of a writ petition, in W.P.No.10119 of 1986. The said writ petition had been dismissed by this court, by its order, dated 31.07.1998. 3. It had been further stated that the original owner of the land B.M. Nanjaiyan, the first petitioner and the said Rangasamy had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.13522 of 1998, before this Court, praying for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to exclude 1.09 acres, in Survey No.479/6 of Thalavadi Village, from the land acquisition proceedings. When the writ petition had been taken up for hearing, in view of the assurance given by the Government that it would consider the grievance of the petitioners therein, it had been withdrawn. Subsequently, the first respondent, by a Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.396 (AM2) Department, dated 28.12.2001, had excluded the lands, to an extent of 1.09 acres, from the land acquisition proceedings. While passing the said order, the first respondent had observed that the notification, as well as the declaration pertaining to an extent of 1.09 acres, in Survey No.479/6 had been dropped from the land acquisition proceedings, excluding an extent of 0.65 cents of the land. It had also been observed that the compensation amount payable, in respect of the said extent of 0.65 cents could be paid over to the Erode Market Committee, as a gift, by the owners of the lands in question. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings had come to an end, by way of a declaration, made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by publication of a Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.990, dated 16.05.1986. 4. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings had come to an end, by way of a declaration, made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by publication of a Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.990, dated 16.05.1986. 4. It has been further stated that, while so, the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 18.01.2012, compelling the petitioners to register a gift deed in favour of the Erode Market Committee, to an extent of 0.65 cents of lands, in Survey No.479/6, in Thalavadi Village. It had also been stated that, on the failure of the petitioners to register the gift deed in favour of the Erode Market Committee, as per the said proceedings of the second respondent, dated 18.01.2012, land acquisition proceedings could be initiated, in respect of the entire 1.09 acres of lands in the said survey number. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the second respondent has no power or authority to issue the impugned proceedings, dated 18.01.2012. The petitioners cannot be compelled, by the second respondent, to execute a gift deed, in respect of 0.65 cents of lands, in Survey No.479/6, in Thalavadi Village, as there was no such agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents. Even otherwise, it would not be open to the second respondent to compel the petitioners to execute the gift deed in favour of the Erode Market Committee, as directed in the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 18.01.2012. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 18.01.2012, is liable to be set-aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 had submitted that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 18.01.2012, had been issued only in view of the earlier agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents and therefore, the said proceedings is valid in the eye of law. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the second respondent does not have any power or authority to compel the petitioners to register a gift deed in favour of the Erode Market Committee, in respect of 0.65 cents of lands, in Survey No.479/6, in Thalavadi Village. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondents to substantiate the claim that the petitioners had agreed to gift 0.65 cents of lands, in Survey No.479/6, in Thalavadi Village, in favour of the Erode Market Committee. 8. Even otherwise, the petitioners cannot be compelled to comply with the direction issued by the second respondent, in his proceedings, dated 18.01.2012, to register a gift deed, in favour of the Erode Market Committee. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the State Government to acquire the land in question, in favour of the Erode Market Committee, if it had not been acquired earlier, by following the procedures established in law. If the State Government initiates such proceedings, for acquiring the land in question, it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the same, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. 9. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 18.01.2012, is set-aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently the connected MP is closed.