JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J. This Writ Appeal is filed by the writ petitioners challenging the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.No.8909 of 2009 filed by the appellants/writ petitioners to quash the order passed by the first respondent in Perambalur District Gazette, dated 17.10.1997. 2. It is the case of the appellants/writ petitioners that the second appellant is owning an extent of 0.62.5 hectares in Survey no.406/5 and the first appellant and the fourth appellant are owning totally 0.53.0 hectares in S.No.405/6. One K. Poovayee is owning an extent of 0.19.0 hectares in S.No.406/4 and another extent jointly with one K.Poornathammal, measuring an extent of 0.39.5 hectares in S.No.406/4C; one Periyasamy is owning an extent of 0.07.5 hectares in S.No.405/5A and V. Poornathammal is owning an extent of 0.34.5 hectares in S.No.406/1, all in Maravanatham Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. The above area is contiguous and is being kept for the purpose of constructing houses of their own. While so, the said lands were sought to be acquired for providing house-sites to Adi Dravidars residing in the said District. The said land acquisition proceedings were originally initiated in the year 1995. Some of the affected land owners filed W.P.No.11692, 11693 and 11853 of 1995 before this Court under the Central Act (Land Acquisition Act, 1894), which were allowed. Thereafter, again acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 and the appellants/writ petitioners raised objections, but however, overlooking the said objections, the respondents have acquired the lands. Hence, the appellants/writ petitioners again filed Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.19480 of 1997 challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 18.09.1997. While admitting the said Writ Petition, this Court initially granted interim stay and when the said Writ Petition came up for final hearing, it was represented on behalf of the respondents that subsequent to the proceedings, dated 18.09.1997, notification under Section 4(1) under the Act 31 of 1978 came to be issued. Hence, this Court gave liberty to the appellants/writ petitioners to challenge the final order passed under Section 4(1) of the Act and the said Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of on 02.08.2004. 3. Hence, this Court gave liberty to the appellants/writ petitioners to challenge the final order passed under Section 4(1) of the Act and the said Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of on 02.08.2004. 3. After receiving the copy of the above said order of this Court, the appellants/writ petitioners made a representation on 27.09.2004, requesting the respondents to furnish a copy of the Notification issued under Section 4(1), for which, the first respondent replied by letter dated 08.10.2004 directing the petitioners to approach the Government Press, where they said that they don't have the copy of the Gazette Notification. When the appellants/writ petitioners once again approached the respondents, they said that they are not furnishing the copy of the Notification. Hence, the first appellant again filed W.P.No.35207 of 2004 seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to furnish a copy of the said Notification issued under Section 4(1) in the above said land acquisition proceedings. This Court directed the respondents to furnish a copy of the said Notification in two weeks. 4. On receipt of the order copy, the first appellant made a representation enclosing the copy of the order of this Court, and requesting them to furnish the copy of the said Notification. However, the respondents again have not furnished the copy of the Notification till date. On the one hand, they are not furnishing the copy of the Notification to see to it that the writ petitioners could not approach the Court and on the other hand, they are trying to dispossess the writ petitioners from the above lands. Hence, the writ petitioners again filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.16278 of 2005 seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from dispossessing the writ petitioners from their lands in S.Nos.405/5A, 405/6, 405/8, 406/1, 406/4A, 406/4C, covered under the land acquisition proceedings in Maravanatham Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District, without furnishing a copy of the Notification issued under Section 4(1) to the writ petitioners. This Court disposed of the said W.P.No.16278 of 2005 by order dated 17.03.2009 directing the second respondent to furnish the copy of the Section 4(1) Notification within a period of four weeks. Only thereafter, the writ petitioners have been furnished with a certified copy of the said Section 4(1) Notification published in Gazette, dated 17.10.1997 by the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 06.04.2009. Only thereafter, the writ petitioners have been furnished with a certified copy of the said Section 4(1) Notification published in Gazette, dated 17.10.1997 by the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 06.04.2009. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition in W.P.No.8909 of 2009 is filed by them for the relief stated supra. 5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the present Writ Petition on the ground that the first respondent, after having considered the objections of the writ petitioners, passed a detailed order on 18.09.1997, rejecting the objections and thereafter, the impugned Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was also published in the District Gazette. Hence, the contention of the writ petitioners that they were not served with any notice as required under Section 4(2) of the Act and the principles of natural justice, were not followed by the authorities, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and having found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned land acquisition proceedings, much less in the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of Act 31 of 1978, warranting interference by the learned Single Judge and the writ petitioners having not raised any other valid ground challenging the said Notification, dismissed the Writ Petition as devoid of merits. Challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Writ Petitioners are before this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners, by inviting the attention of this Court to Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 (The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978), submitted that as per Section 4(1) therein, where the District Collector is satisfied that, for the purpose of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire the land by publishing in the District Gazette a notice to the effect that he has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this Section and as per Section 4(2) therein, before publishing a notice under sub-section (1) therein, the District Collector or any officer authorised by the District Collector in that behalf, shall call upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to show cause why the land should not be acquired. In the instant case, the appellants/writ petitioners have not been served with any show cause notice in Form-I as stipulated under Section 4(2) of the said Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules, 1979 (G.O.Ms.No.1628, Social Welfare Department, dated 21.09.1979) framed under that Act. The District Collector shall serve a show cause notice in Form-I under Section 4(2) of the said Act and such show cause notice in Form-I must be sent by RPAD only. As stated above, the appellants have not been served with Form-I and no date or proof of service of show cause notice had been mentioned in the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 18.09.1997. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners further submitted that as per Section 4(3)(b) of the said Act, the officer authorised by the District Collector, shall make a report to the District Collector, who shall pass an order after considering such report. While he passes such an order under Section 4(2) of the Act, by complying with the conditions mentioned in Rule 3 of the said Rules framed under the said Act, the Collector did not mention about the date or proof of service of Form-I show cause notice sent by RPAD and the details regarding the acknowledgement card or registration receipt has not been stated in the District Collector's proceedings dated 18.09.1997. Further, as per the District Collector's proceedings, dated 18.09.1997, the owner of S.No.405/4A had given consent for acquisition and the appellants are not the owners of the land in S.No.405/4A ipso-facto, the consent given by the other land owner cannot bind the appellants herein. 8. As next fold of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as per Section 4(1) Notification, the lands are acquired because the Government of Tami Nadu wants it, per contra, as per Rule 3(2) of the said Rules framed under the said Act, for any land to be acquired, it must be to the satisfaction of the District Collector for issuing Section 4(1) Notification, but in the instant case, Section 4(1) Notification did not say that the District Collector had been satisfied with the acquisition proceedings. 9. 9. In the above context, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants also invited the attention of this Court to Section 4(1) Notification, and submitted that in the said Notification proceedings dated 18.09.1997, vide published in District Gazette, while rejecting the objections of the land owners, it has been stated that since the land is in need by the Government of Tamil Nadu for providing house-sites to Harijans/Adi Dravidars, the Notification is being issued. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners further submitted that the wordings in the said Section 4(1) Notification, would clearly show that there is no personal satisfaction by the District Collector as required under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, as per Section 4(2), in case the authorised officer has rejected the objections of the land owners, while issuing notice under Section 4(2), such Notification must be accompanied by the report of the Special Tahsildar who has over-ruled the objections and in the instant case, the District Collector's proceedings dated 18.09.1997 did not accompany any report of the Special Tahsildar. 10. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants relied on a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 (FB) (Pari.R. Vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare, Devakottai), wherein Full Bench held that District Collector should give an opportunity to land owners to file further representation on the report/recommendation made by authorised officer/Special Tahsildar and as such, land owners are entitled for such report as per Right to Information Act, 2005 also. In paragraph 43 of the said judgment, the Full Bench observed that the land owners should be furnished with a copy of the report and the recommendations of the authorised officer/The Special Tahsildar. In the instant case, the appellants/land owners have not been served with such report of the Special Tahsildar and no proof of service by RPAD has been furnished. Hence, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is serious violation of the legal/statutory procedures, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, are liable to be quashed, as the learned Single Judge failed to consider the above aspects. 11. Hence, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is serious violation of the legal/statutory procedures, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, are liable to be quashed, as the learned Single Judge failed to consider the above aspects. 11. Countering the above submissions, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that it is incorrect to state that the writ petitioners were not served with notice under Section 4(2) of the Act. In fact, the learned Single Judge, by perusing the records/files, found that the appellants/writ petitioners were served with the notice and the appellants have also filed their objections. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge recorded that the writ petitioners did not raise any other valid ground. In fact, the writ petitioners in the first instance, filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings originally initiated under the old Act of 1894, in the year 1995, in W.P.Nos.11692 and 11693 of 1995, which were allowed on 28.08.1995. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that in respect of the present acquisition, in the proposals sent by the second respondent to the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act, forwarded through the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, dated 16.10.1996, it was recorded therein that the notices under Section 4(2) were sent to the land owners by post and enquiry was fixed on 10.09.1996. In the said proceedings, it was further recorded that the land owners have filed their objections and appeared for the enquiry. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that no enquiry was conducted as required under Section 4(2) of the Act. 12. In the said proceedings, it was further recorded that the land owners have filed their objections and appeared for the enquiry. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that no enquiry was conducted as required under Section 4(2) of the Act. 12. With regard to the other submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners that there is no satisfaction arrived at by the District Collector for issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1), it is replied by the learned Special Government Pleader that mere perusal of the District Collector's proceedings, dated 18.09.1997 would establish the application of mind by the District Collector based on the proposal sent by the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) on 16.10.1996, which was referred in the said proceedings in the reference and the District Collector passed order rejecting the objections of the land owners/appellants exercising his power under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act. The said proceedings, dated 18.09.1997 were also communicated to the land owners and only based on the same, the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.19480 of 1997 was filed by them. 13. With regard to furnishing the report of the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare to the land owners by the District Collector to enable them to file their objections, learned Special Government Pleader relied upon the said Full Bench decision and submitted that non-furnishing of the report would not have the ipso-facto effect of vitiating the proceedings. For the same proposition, learned Special Government Pleader also relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 817 (Thirunavukkarasu Vs. The District Collector). Hence, for the above reasons, learned Special Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the third respondent is one of the beneficiaries under the land acquisition proceedings and patta-holder among 130 poor Adi Dravida families. All the beneficiaries are the patta-holders for house-sites provided by the respondents 1 and 2 in S.No.405/4A in 2.68.5 hectares bearing Na.Ka.A1/11184/1993, dated 05.05.2005 in Maravanatham Village, V.Kalathur Post, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. All the beneficiaries are the patta-holders for house-sites provided by the respondents 1 and 2 in S.No.405/4A in 2.68.5 hectares bearing Na.Ka.A1/11184/1993, dated 05.05.2005 in Maravanatham Village, V.Kalathur Post, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. Further, after dismissal of W.P.No.8909 of 2009, dated 16.08.2018, the third respondent and all the beneficiaries are given the possession of house-sites allotted to all as per house-site patta issued in 2005 by the respondents 1 and 2 and after completing the survey and identification, in the identified house-sites, houses/huts were also constructed and further, all the beneficiaries are women residing in the houses. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the third respondent produced photographs to show that the huts have been constructed in the place in question. Learned counsel for the third respondent also produced a copy of the patta issued to the beneficiaries. 15. Learned counsel for the third respondent further submitted that merely because the format as prescribed in Form-II contained such as 'it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu' does not take away the satisfaction of the District Collector shown in the records of acquisition. Hence, the Gazette Notification was properly followed as per Form No.II Rule 3 format (II) of the Tamil Nadu 31 of 1978. The grounds raised by the appellants/writ petitioners after 21 years, are untenable and not sustainable in accordance with law. Even in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.8909 of 2009, the appellants have admitted that they have received the notice and filed their objections. 16. Learned counsel for the third respondent further stated that in the present case, though the respondents 1 and 2 have properly followed the proceedings while providing the house-sites in accordance with law, the appellants/writ petitioners, suppressing all the true facts, have filed the Writ Petition, which is vexatious and frivolous and further, they have filed the Writ Appeal with an intention to maintain the communal discrimination. Hence, for all these reasons, learned counsel for the third respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 17. Keeping in mind the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have given our anxious consideration to the same and carefully perused the materials available on record. 18. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners are mainly on two folds. 17. Keeping in mind the above submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have given our anxious consideration to the same and carefully perused the materials available on record. 18. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners are mainly on two folds. Firstly, the appellants/writ petitioners have not been served with show cause notice in Form-I. As stated supra, notice under Section 4(2) read with Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the said Act, according to the learned Senior Counsel, had not been served on the appellants. Further, as per Section 4(1) Notification, the procedures contemplated under Section 4(3) had not been followed. Moreover, no report of the Special Tahsildar was communicated to the appellants before passing the order by the District Collector under Section 4(3)(b) and the publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) in the District Gazette, did not contain the satisfaction of the District Collector and it only contains the satisfaction of the Government and not in the name of the District Collector. 19. On a perusal of the entire records, we find that the proposal sent by the second respondent to the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 16.10.1996, was recorded, which is evident from page 14 Vol.I of the records produced by the learned Special Government Pleader. Further, notice under Section 4(2) was also sent to the land owners by post and the enquiry was fixed on 10.09.1996. The relevant portion of the proceedings dated 16.10.1996 of the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar, Perambalur to the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Perambalur, reads as follows: “TAMIL” 20. Though the notice under Section 4(2) was sent to the land owners by post, the enquiry was fixed on 10.09.1996. In the said proceedings, it was further recorded that the land owners have filed their objections and appeared for the enquiry. In fact, in the earlier litigation in W.P.No.19480 of 1997, it has been stated by the appellants/writ petitioners themselves that they have filed their objections in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed therein. In the said proceedings, it was further recorded that the land owners have filed their objections and appeared for the enquiry. In fact, in the earlier litigation in W.P.No.19480 of 1997, it has been stated by the appellants/writ petitioners themselves that they have filed their objections in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed therein. Further, in page 491 of the records produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, it is seen that the writ petitioners have filed their objections, which were over-ruled, which is evident from the contents in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in W.P.No.19480 of 1997, which reads as follows from page 491 of the records: "7. The petitioners humbly submit that the Collector has overlooked the objections on the sole ground that the remaining extent of the land can be used for the provision of house site, which is also factually incorrect and nothing but an omnibus statement. ...." 21. Therefore, on a perusal of the above records, it is clear that Section 4(2) notice was actually served on the writ petitioners and they have also filed their objections, which were subsequently over-ruled. In fact, the learned Single Judge also, by perusing the records/files, had rejected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. We do not find any infirmity in such order passed by the learned Single Judge. 22. The next submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners is with regard to the satisfaction to be arrived at by the District Collector before issuing Notification under Section 4(1). According to him, the District Collector in the instant case did not arrive at the satisfaction before issuing such Notification under Section 4(1) and it only contains the satisfaction of the Government, which is not the intention of the Legislature while drafting the Act. As contended by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, from the records it is seen that it has been clearly established that there is application of mind by the District Collector in issuing the proceedings based on the proposal sent by the Special Tahsildar on 16.10.1996 referred to therein. The objections of the land owners were rejected by the District Collector, by exercising his powers under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act. The proceedings dated 18.09.1997 was also communicated to the land owners. The objections of the land owners were rejected by the District Collector, by exercising his powers under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act. The proceedings dated 18.09.1997 was also communicated to the land owners. Relevant passage of the rejection of the objections by the District Collector, reads as follows: “TAMIL” Therefore, it is clear that on personal satisfaction, the District Collector has issued the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 23. It is yet another submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the Special Tahsildar of Adi Dravidar Welfare's report was not furnished to the land owners by the District Collector, to enable the land owners to effectively file their further objections. This ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner deserves to fall to the ground, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (4) CTC 609 (FB), cited supra, and the relevant portion of the same reads as follows: "43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our conclusions are as follows: The owner should be furnished with a copy of the report/recommendation of the authorised officer. Thereafter, he should be given two weeks' time to make further representation, if any, before the District Collector. It is not necessary for the District Collector to give a further personal hearing or make any further enquiry. However, mere non-furnishing of the report would not have the ipso facto effect of vitiating the proceedings and the question of prejudice to the land owner is required to be considered in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances. The District Collector is expected to reflect the reasons, but merely because the communication to the land owner does not contain the reasons, the decision of the Collector is not ipso facto vitiated and it would always be open to the concerned authority to prove before the Court, if such action of the Collector is challenged, that there has been application of mind and the reasons are available in the relevant records relating to such acquisition. The necessity to record the reasons is applicable where the Collector himself makes the enquiry and also where the Collector takes an appropriate decision on the basis of the report/recommendation made by the authorised officer." 24. The necessity to record the reasons is applicable where the Collector himself makes the enquiry and also where the Collector takes an appropriate decision on the basis of the report/recommendation made by the authorised officer." 24. With regard to non-furnishing of the report of the Special Tahsildar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 817 (Thirunavukkarasu. N. Vs. The District Collector, Thanjavur), wherein the Division Bench referred to the abovesaid Full Bench decision of this Court and held as follows: "6. In this case, it is not in dispute that the District Collector has in fact considered the report of the second respondent, Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Thiruvaiyaru, dated 9.3.1998, as it is referred to in the impugned order itself. The only fact that remains to be considered is, as to whether the appellant was entitled to a copy of the report filed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Thiruvaiyaru, to enable him to file his reply, to enable, the District Collector to pass orders. It is, to substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in R. Pari Vs. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Devakiottai and another, 2006 (4) CTC 609 : 2006 (3) LW 1000 . While dealing with the above said aspect, it is true, that the Full Bench has concluded that the report or recommendations of the Authorised Officer should be furnished to the owner and the owner must be given two weeks time to make his further representation before the District Collector, however, holding that the District Collector, need not conduct any further personal hearing. However, the Full Bench in categorical terms held that, mere non-furnishing of copy of the report would not have the ipso-facto effect of vitiating the acquisition proceedings. The same has to be considered on the point of prejudice that may be caused to the land owner in not furnishing the copy of such report of the Authorised Officer, based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this regard, the Full Bench has laid down the law as follows: "37. The same has to be considered on the point of prejudice that may be caused to the land owner in not furnishing the copy of such report of the Authorised Officer, based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this regard, the Full Bench has laid down the law as follows: "37. The desirability of furnishing a copy of the report to enable the land owner to make a further representation to the District Collector does not mean that in every case, where such report has not been furnished, the ultimate order passed by the District Collector deciding to acquire the land is automatically vitiated. The scope for judicial interference in the matter relating to acquisition of land obviously being very limited, the Court in each case is required to find out whether non-furnishing of the report in any way has prejudiced the person concerned. The object of furnishing the report and affording further opportunity to the land owner to make a further representation is obviously to pinpoint any deficiency in the report of the Authorised Officer. If any particular aspect has been highlighted by the land owner and has not been considered by the Authorised Officer, the land owner would get a further opportunity to highlight such aspect before the District Collector. In other words, if the Authorised Officer has considered the relevant aspects indicated by the objector and made his recommendations, merely because a copy of such report is not furnished and no further opportunity is given to the land owner, may not be a ground to quash the land acquisition proceedings. On the other hand, if important aspects, which have been highlighted by the land owner, have been ignored by the Authorised Officer, it may be reasonable to infer non-furnishing of such report and non-offering of opportunity to make further representation might have vitiated the ultimate decision of the District Collector. These are matters to be considered on the basis of the facts and circumstances in each acquisition and it should not be construed that as a matter of law in every case where copy of the report has not been furnished and opportunity of making further representation had been denied, it is sufficient to quash such acquisition. Ultimately, the Court has to judge the prejudice caused to such person by keeping in view the facts and circumstances in particular case." 25. Ultimately, the Court has to judge the prejudice caused to such person by keeping in view the facts and circumstances in particular case." 25. As laid down in the above decision and being observed by the Full Bench, if at all any prejudice is caused to the land owners, and if any valid point has been ignored by the Authorised Officer and if any deficiency is pointed out in the report of the Authorised Officer, then only the land owner is entitled to get a further opportunity to highlight such aspect before the District Collector, that too it has to be dealt with based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, no prejudice is caused to the land owner and each and every aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the District Collector while over-ruling such objections before issuing the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 26. Further, in the present case, the objections of the appellants/writ petitioners/land owners indicating the aspect that they are small farmers and they require the land for their use, was considered by the District Collector and the objections of the land owners have been over-ruled on the proposal of land acquisition sent on 16.10.1996 by the Special Tahsildar. 27. Moreover, as per the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the District Collector has satisfied himself about the acquisition proceedings and the Notification had also been published in the District Gazette after following the provisions of the Act. The satisfaction of the District Collector is contemplated under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act. 28. In the instant case, the very scheme of the Act, i.e. Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, is that the Notification under Section 4(1) should be preceded by the satisfaction of the District Collector, who shall consider the objections of the land owners and if not satisfied, he may over-rule the objections, which was done in this case on 18.09.1997. Therefore, the Notification was also published in the District Gazette and the publication was made only in the name of the District Collector. Since it is stated in the said Notification that, "it appears for the Government of Tamil Nadu", does not mean that without the satisfaction of the District Collector, the Notification under Section 4(1) was issued. Therefore, the Notification was also published in the District Gazette and the publication was made only in the name of the District Collector. Since it is stated in the said Notification that, "it appears for the Government of Tamil Nadu", does not mean that without the satisfaction of the District Collector, the Notification under Section 4(1) was issued. In this regard, a reference is made by the learned Special Government Pleader to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (1) MLJ 569 (Secy. to Government Vs. P.Dhanabakkiam), wherein the Writ Appeal filed by the State was dismissed, on the ground that the Notification therein was issued for providing burial ground to the Adi Dravidar Arunthathiars. The preamble of the impugned Section 4(1) Notification therein refers that the acquisition is for the purpose of providing burial ground to Adi Dravidars/Arunthathiars and the schedule therein refers the pubic purpose as one of providing house-sites. By two different versions in regard to the public purpose, it must be held that there is no application of mind as to the very public purpose. Hence, it was held in that decision that in order to find out the actual public purpose, the provisions of Section 4(1) contemplate that the satisfaction must be that of the District Collector and not of the Government. Therefore, when the impugned Notification therein refers to two different public purposes, it only reflected the non-application of mind that occurred in view of the fact that the District Collector has not actually applied his mind as to the actual public purpose. Those facts in that decision are distinguishable to the case on hand, as the public purpose is only carefully worded in all places of the Notification, proceedings, etc., i.e. for providing house-sites to Adi Dravidars. Further in that decision, the satisfaction arrived at by the District Collector based on the records of the acquisition, was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench therein. Therein the Writ Appeal was dismissed on two grounds, namely that the impugned Notification therein shows that the satisfaction to acquire the lands was only at the level of Government of Tamil Nadu and not the District Collector and also on the ground that the said Notification contain the said two purposes of acquisition. Therein the Writ Appeal was dismissed on two grounds, namely that the impugned Notification therein shows that the satisfaction to acquire the lands was only at the level of Government of Tamil Nadu and not the District Collector and also on the ground that the said Notification contain the said two purposes of acquisition. In the present case, the satisfaction arrived by the District Collector is based on the materials available on record. We find no infirmity in arriving at such satisfaction by the District Collector. 29. The authorities have fully complied with the procedures laid down under law and the lands were acquired for public purpose of providing house-sites to Adi Dravidars, and in all, we find no illegality or irregularity in the acquisition proceedings. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference by us. 30. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.