Judgment : The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari mandamus to call for the records of the notifications issued in G.O.R.No.1392, Industries, Labour and Cooperation (Industries), dated 19. 1992 on the file of the first respondent herein and published in the Fort St.George Gazette, dated 110. 1962 and quash the same, directing the respondents herein to hand over vacant possession of the land of an extent of 1.47 acres covered and comprised in Survey No.843 bearing Patta No.322, situate in Madhavaram village, Chingleput district to the petitioner herein. 2. It seems that certain lands were sought to be acquired for Reichhold Chemicals India Ltd., for the manufacture of synthetic resins and accordingly they were acquired in the year 1962, when the father of the petitioners herein was alive. After the death of the father of the petitioners herein, in the year 1985, the petitioners herein seem to have written a letter in the year 1992 to the first respondent calling for the respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the lands so acquired, since the lands were not utilised for the purpose for which they were acquired. The petitioners were replied that the company for which the lands were acquired had been taken over by UB Groups during the year 1988, that the lands so acquired were in the custody of Amalgamation Group and as such the petitioners were informed that they should write to Amalgamation Group Limited. Later, the petitioners’ counsel issued a notice to Amalgamation Group and the petitioners were replied by M/s.Amalgamations Limited, the third respondent herein, that the lands were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the acquisition had become final as early as 1964, that M/s.Simpson and General Finance Co. Ltd., took possession of the lands on 30.4.1964 and that by that time, the petitioners title to the said land had become extinguished once and for all. The petitioners were also informed that the lands in question were resumed by the Government under the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Government and Simpson and General Finance Limited and that they were issued by the Government to Sri Rama Vilas Services Limited for the purpose of setting out their Transport Industry. 3. The petitioners were also informed that the lands in question were resumed by the Government under the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Government and Simpson and General Finance Limited and that they were issued by the Government to Sri Rama Vilas Services Limited for the purpose of setting out their Transport Industry. 3. Mr.C.S.Prakasa Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that once the lands, which were acquired for certain purposes were not used for that purpose, the State Government cannot make use of the land by leasing out the same to third party and that the said lands should be returned to original owners. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the lands were acquired for Reichhold Chemicals India Limited, that when the company was not in existence, it is not open to the Government to lease out the lands to some other Company without authority of law that the action of the Government is illegal. It is also argued by the learned counsel then the petitioners are ready and willing to pay back the amount of compensation paid for the said land acquired. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition I am not able to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, once the land is taken possession, it vests with Government free of all encumbrances. The lands in question were acquired as early as 1964 and I do not think the petitioners can claim any interest in the said lands; nearly after 28 years and try to contend as if they are having title over the lands. Once the land is taken over and compensation is paid to the owner, the matter ends there itself. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ father had received compensation for the lands so acquired by the Government and the lands were vested with the Government thereafter. It is not clear from the affidavit or from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners whether the lands were handed over to the company for the purpose, for which the lands were acquired. It is not clear from the affidavit or from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners whether the lands were handed over to the company for the purpose, for which the lands were acquired. It is seen from the averments made in the affidavit and from the letters written by Amalgamation company that the lands were given to the company and that the said company was taken over by another company later. As such lands which were handed over to the company originally were resumed and were leased out to another company. Nobody can prevent that. From the records before this Court it is seen that the lands were with the Government as Government lands. Even under the common law, the lands are vested with the Government nearly 28 years ago. I do not think the provisions of standing orders of the Board of Revenue, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner will apply to the facts of the case on hand. It is settled law under S.O.90of 32 ho land shall be disposed of, to any person, which is no longer required for the public purpose for whcrh it was acquired and if the land relinquished is likely to be again required for public purposes, it should be merely leased out for such term as may be considered desirable in each case. There are no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, it shall stand dismissed.