JUDGMENT M. DURAISWAMY, J. 1. Since the issue involved in the Second Appeal and in the Writ Petition are connected, the above Second Appeal and the Writ Petition are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment passed in C.M.A. No. 21 of 1999, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputtur enhancing the compensation awarded by the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Srivilliputtur in Award No. 3/98-99. 3. The appellant viz., the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Srivilliputtur, initiated acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 on 11.08.1998 for the purpose of commissioning Samathuvapuram scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs. 218/- per cent i.e. Rs. 53,846/- per Hectare. The Subordinate Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,450/- per cent. Aggrieved over the award of Rs. 2,450/- per cent, the Special Tahsildar has filed the above Second Appeal. 4. The Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 13544 of 2009 has been filed by the respondents in the Second Appeal to issue a Writ of Certirarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the notification issued in the Virudhunagar District Gazette, dated 11.08.1998 under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the compensation of the petitioners' land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 within the time frame. 5. It is the case of the petitioners in the Writ Petition that since the purpose of acquisition was for Samathuvapuram scheme, the acquisition cannot be made under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, since the beneficiaries are not exclusively harijans as defined under the said Act. 6. The third respondent/Special Tahsildar filed his counter affidavit in the writ petition, however, he has not averred anything about the initiation of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978. It is mandatory under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 that the beneficiaries under the Act should be harijans. Since the acquisition was made for Samathuvapuram scheme, it cannot be said that the beneficiaries are all harijans. 7. In the judgment reported in W.P. No. 3323 of 1999, dated 17.12.2002 this Court held that under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, the acquisition can be undertaken for harijan welfare schemes and for exclusive benefit for harijans. Since the acquisition was made for Samathuvapuram scheme, it cannot be said that the beneficiaries are all harijans. 7. In the judgment reported in W.P. No. 3323 of 1999, dated 17.12.2002 this Court held that under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, the acquisition can be undertaken for harijan welfare schemes and for exclusive benefit for harijans. Further this Court held that if fraction of beneficiaries are not harijans, acquisition cannot be undertaken. 8. The ratio laid down in the said judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In these circumstances, the land acquisition initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 is bad in law. 9. However, the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur proceeded to enhance the compensation under the Central Act, i.e. the Land Acquisition Act 1894. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Government had already taken possession of the lands acquired for the purpose of Samathuvapuram scheme and the scheme is also in operation in the said lands. 10. Mr. A. Sivaji, learned Counsel appearing for the land owners submitted that the land owners are interested only in the compensation and not in the acquired lands. 11. Therefore, I am of the view that, though, acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 is bad in law, taking note of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the land owners, the land acquisition proceedings can be regularised by the Government without disturbing the acquisition of the lands. 12. With regard to the compensation, in the award passed by the Special Tahsildar in respect of the acquired lands, the Special Tahsildar took into consideration the data sale deed dated 19.02.1997. The notification under Section 1(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 31 of 1978 was published in the Gazette on 11.08.1998. The total extent of the land acquired was 4.58.5 Hectares. The extent of land in the data sale deed dated 19.02.1997 is 3.79 Acres. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation of Rs. 218/- per cent. In the appeal filed by the land owners in C.M.A. No. 21 of 1999, the lower Appellate Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,450/- per cent. While fixing the compensation at Rs. 2,450/- per cent, the lower Appellate Court relied upon Ex.C.8-sale deed produced by the claimants/land owners. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation of Rs. 218/- per cent. In the appeal filed by the land owners in C.M.A. No. 21 of 1999, the lower Appellate Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,450/- per cent. While fixing the compensation at Rs. 2,450/- per cent, the lower Appellate Court relied upon Ex.C.8-sale deed produced by the claimants/land owners. As per EX.C.8-sale deed dated 14.07.1998, one cent of land was sold at the rate of Rs. 3,500/-. The lower Appellate Court also found that the land which was transacted in Ex.C.8 is identical with the acquired lands. The acquired lands are fit for developing the same as housing plots. The lower Appellate Court also observed that the acquired lands has got bus and road facilities. The date of Ex.C.8-sale deed is also before the date of acquisition notification. When the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per cent in July 1988 i.e. prior to the issuance of the acquisition notification, the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 218/- per cent is very low. Even from this Rs. 3,500/- the lower Appellate Court deducted 30% towards development charges and ultimately fixed a sum of Rs. 2,450/- as compensation for a cent of land. The lower Appellate Court also awarded 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of taking possession of the lands and thereafter 15% interest till the date of actual payment of the compensation. The lower Appellate Court also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- towards the value to the well, motor pump-set and pipeline. Taking into consideration the valuation of the acquired lands, the fixation of compensation by the lower Appellate Court, based on the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is just and proper. 13. Since the lower Appellate Court had proceeded to fix the compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894, I do not find any reason to quash the acquisition proceedings at this stage. 14. As already stated, the respondents in the Writ Petition are directed to regularise the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 by changing into the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 14. As already stated, the respondents in the Writ Petition are directed to regularise the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 by changing into the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Since I am confirming the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A. No. 21 of 1999, I direct the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer (ADW), Srivilliputhur to pay the compensation amount within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This direction is being given to the Special Tahsildar for the reason that the acquisition proceedings had commenced way back in the year 1998 and the claimants have not received the entire compensation till this day. 15. In these circumstances, I find no ground much less any substantial question of law to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.