JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.4620/2001/A dated 28/09/2012 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to measure and demarcate the land bearing Survey No. 174/2 of Chokkathevanpatti Village, Valanthur block, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.) 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the second respondent dated 28.09.2012 and consequently to direct the second respondent to measure and demarcate the land in S.No.174/2 at Chokkathevanpatti Village, Valanthur Block, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. 2. Heard M/s.A.Rajini, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and Mr.V.Nagendran, learned counsel for the proposed parties. 3. M/s.A.Rajini, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the deceased petitioner (herein after referred to as petitioner) was originally granted an assignment after acquiring the property in S.No.174/2 to an extent of 1.94 acres. When the original land owners had challenged the land acquisition proceedings, it was reported by the respondents that in view of the law and order problem, the acquisition proceedings were dropped. She would further submit that after the grant of an order of assignment in favour of the petitioner, he had approached this Court in W.P.No.26636 of 2003, wherein this Court had directed the respondents therein to remove the encroachment in the assigned land to the petitioner. By suppressing the said order, the authorities have reported to this Court that the land acquisition proceedings have been dropped. 4. She would further vehemently contend that while the lands have been acquired and the beneficiaries have been identified, the respondents do not have any authority to drop the acquisition proceedings. They ought to have earmarked the land and handed over the possession of the property as per the order of assignment. Hence, she would submit that the petitioner had made various representations to the authorities. 5. The second respondent, by the impugned communication dated 28.09.2012, had rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the original beneficiaries, who have been identified for grant of house site patta, were found to be later ineligible. Hence, she would submit that the petitioner had made various representations to the authorities. 5. The second respondent, by the impugned communication dated 28.09.2012, had rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the original beneficiaries, who have been identified for grant of house site patta, were found to be later ineligible. As per the report dated 21.11.2008, the petitioner was found to be ineligible for grant of assignment and therefore, the second respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner. Assailing the said finding, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no notice whatsoever had been issued to the petitioner before cancelling the assignment. Therefore, she would plead that this Court should interfere with the orders passed by the second respondent and consequently to direct the second respondent to issue patta, based upon the original order of assignment. 6. Countering her arguments, Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that it is true that the petitioner was allotted with the house site patta along with 50 others. Since there were many claims from various parties as regards to the eligibility, an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the second respondent and only 24 persons were found to be eligible. The petitioner was found to be ineligible, as he owns a patta land in patta bearing No.1203 in S.No.240/2 measuring an extent of 0.79.0 Ares. The lands were sought to be assigned only to the landless poor persons. The petitioner being a Thalaiyari of the village and by suppressing his owning the lands had made an assignment influencing the authorities. Only on certain complaints, it was found that various persons along with the petitioner were ineligible. 7. She would further submit that the Government after taking into consideration of the various law and order problem had dropped the acquisition proceedings in respect of S.No.174/2 and thereafter, identified a different area in S.No.181A/4. Hence, she would submit that the petitioner cannot insist upon the assignment of land only in S.No.174/2. 8. To buttress her contention, the learned Special Government Pleader relied upon a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.395 and 396 of 2017 (R.Rangarajan and another Vs. Hence, she would submit that the petitioner cannot insist upon the assignment of land only in S.No.174/2. 8. To buttress her contention, the learned Special Government Pleader relied upon a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.395 and 396 of 2017 (R.Rangarajan and another Vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District and another) dated 01.12.2022 and submitted that the beneficiaries cannot be allowed to choose the land for acquisition, as it will lead to a very dangerous consequences. 9. An impleading application has also been filed by the legal heirs of the original owners of S.No.174/2. They would contend that pursuant to the writ petitions filed by them, the Government has proposed to drop the land acquisition proceedings. Once when the land acquisition proceeding was decided to be dropped, the petitioner cannot seek handing over of such land to him based on the order of assignment, which has not culminated into grant of patta and possession being handed over. 10. She would further submit that when the petitioner was found to be ineligible as early as in the year 2002, he cannot claim to be issued with patta and possession of the land, that too when the land acquisition proceedings were dropped in respect of the land in S.No.174/2, the authorities have decided to grant patta in a different area. Hence, she would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side. 12. The petitioner even though was originally granted an order of assignment, he has been subsequently found to be unfit for assignment, as he owns the agricultural lands measuring an extent of 0.79.0 ares. The factum of holding of lands is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But she would submit that the said land is an agricultural land and is not a housing plot. Now what has been allotted to the petitioner was a housing plot. 13. I am not able to appreciate such an argument. The Government had devised the scheme for allotting house sites to the landless poor persons. When the petitioner is already a owner of the land measuring an extent of 0.79.0 ares, which is equivalent to two acres of land, the petitioner cannot be termed to be a landless poor person. 13. I am not able to appreciate such an argument. The Government had devised the scheme for allotting house sites to the landless poor persons. When the petitioner is already a owner of the land measuring an extent of 0.79.0 ares, which is equivalent to two acres of land, the petitioner cannot be termed to be a landless poor person. Further, due to the various proceedings filed by the land owners and their successors, the Government have decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings in S.No.174/2 and have decided to allot the land in S.No. 181A/4. When that be so, even if the petitioner is found to be eligible, he cannot insist upon being given a particular land. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (of which I was a party) relied upon by the learned Special Government Pleader had held that allowing the beneficiaries to choose or to dictate what land should be acquired would be dangerous. It is incumbent only upon the Government to decide which land should be acquired and which would be beneficial. Hence, I am of the view that even if the petitioner is eligible, he cannot insist upon granting of patta and possession of the original allotted plot, since the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land has been dropped by the Government. 14. In fine, I do not find any merits in this writ petition and the Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of the order passed in this writ petition, I do not find any reason to implead the proposed respondents and hence, W.M.P.(MD) No.1419 of 2023 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are also closed.