K. VEERASWAMI, C.J. :- The land acquisition proceedings in these cases have been quashed on two grounds - (1) that Rule 3(b) of the rules framed under Section 55(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had not been followed inasmuch as no notice was given to the objections as required by the rule to the Harijan Welfare Department at whose instance the acquisition was initiated; and (2) that there was departmental bias inasmuch as the same Tahsildar, who did the survey etc., and initiated the proceedings, also held the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The acquisition in these cases was for providing house sites for Harijans.

2. We are not impressed by either of the objections to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. There are hardly any facts to show that the respondents had in any way been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve notice on the Harijan Welfare Department. The record shows that it was at the instance of the Harijan Welfare Department that the proceedings were initiated for acquisition. But it is contended that if notice had been given to that department, it might as well have accepted an alternative site. That was only a mere chance. Notwithst