1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition(MD)No.8792 of 2011 1.Palanichamy Gounder 2.Vellaisamy Gounder ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar and Welfare Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings made in No.Na.Ka.1656/06A on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader. O R D E R The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition challenging a memo issued by the second respondent calling upon the petitioners to remove the encroachments by themselves from the lands acquired under Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1978. 2.Heard Mr.V.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. 3.The fact that the lands in question belonged to the petitioners, is not in dispute. But unfortunately for the petitioners, the respondents initiated proceedings for the acquisition of the said land under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978. The enquiry notice under Section 3(1) of the Act was attempted to be served on the petitioners but they refused. However, the petitioners participated in the enquiry held on 21.01.1999 and objected to the acquisition. The objections were overruled and a notice under Section 4(1) was published in the District Gazette on 16.02.1999 itself. An award enquiry was conducted on 19.03.1999 and award was also passed. Thus, the whole proceedings for acquisition have already been concluded at least 12 years ago. 4.Moreover, the attempt made by the petitioners to challenge the acquisition in the year 2008 by filing W.P.(MD)No.5751 of 2008 failed, with its dismissal by an order dated 29.06.2010. The petitioners have not taken up the order passed in the writ petition, any further. Therefore, a second writ petition challenging the impugned communication would virtually lead to reopening the issue settled in the previous writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petition. 5.Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2.The Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar and Welfare Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. Sms GH : 14.11.2011 : 2p/3c Writ Petition(MD)No.8792 of 2011 31.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/