Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. In both the appeals common question of law being involved and common order under challenge, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The lands of the first respondent (writ petitioner) was acquired pursuant to a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he having challenged, the writ petition, W.P. No.11039/86 was allowed. The said judgment was reversed in W.A. No.1247/94, but with certain observations allowing the first respondent to represent before the authority for reconveyance of the acquired lands in her favour. The application for reconveyance of lands having been rejected on 22nd Feb., 2000, the first respondent challenged the said order by filing the writ petition in question and the same having been allowed, the present appeals have been preferred by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Housing Board). 3. It appears that the first respondent purchased lands at Jagir Ammapalayam village by registered sale deed (document No.4409) dated 15th Dec., 1979 and constructed a building thereon. The State of Tamil Nadu decided to acquire the lands along with adjoining lands in favour of the Housing Board by G.O. Ms. No.525 (Housing and Urban Development), approved on 23rd May, 1985. Section 4 (1) was issued on 12th June, 1985, followed by intimation published in the English Daily "The Hindu" on 26th June, 1985 and the Tamil Daily "Dina Thanthi" on 18th June, 1985. Locals were also informed on 5th Sept., 1985, followed by enquiry conducted u/s 5-A and Notification u/s 6 issued on 3rd Sept., 1986. Draft Declaration was approved u/s 7 on 28th Aug., 1987 and gazetted on 16th Sept., 1987. As stated above, the original notification u/s 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, having been challenged in W.P. No.11039/86, it was allowed by common order dated 28th Nov., 1991 along with some other cases. In W.A. No.1247/94, the said order was reversed in view of the following stand taken at paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit: - "It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had no authority to exempt the house site of the petitioner at this juncture. However certain lands which could be exempted without detriment to the scheme were exempted by the Government. Further, the requisitioning body, viz., the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in its Resolution No.67/86 dated 7. However certain lands which could be exempted without detriment to the scheme were exempted by the Government. Further, the requisitioning body, viz., the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in its Resolution No.67/86 dated 7. 1986 has resolved to re-convey the lands where buildings have come up and occupied by the land owner by way of re-conveyance. Hence, the petitioner can approach the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for re-conveyance of his property by handing over formal permission in view of the fact that award had already been passed." 4. The Division Bench, by judgment dated 4th Oct., 1997, set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge with the following observations: - "As, in those cases, it is submitted that all the writ petitioners have put up the construction, as such they would be eligible to seek re-conveyance as stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. If such a request is made, the Government shall inquire into and determine whether such a request is in conformity with the resolution 67 of 1986 dated 7. 1986 passed by the Housing Board and in case they satisfy the conditions laid down in the resolution, re-conveyance shall be made in their favour. In view of this, we are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. There shall, however, be no order as to costs." The application for reconveyance, thereafter, being rejected vide order dated 23rd Feb., 2000, the writ petition in question was preferred and allowed in favour of the first respondent. 5. According to the counsel for the State, the first respondent having constructed a house after publication of notification u/s 4 (1), she was not entitled for reconveyance of the lands in question. The stand of the Housing Board is that as per the scheme framed vide resolution No.67/86 dated 2nd July, 1986, it was permissible to reconvey the lands in favour of the first respondent, but the said resolution having subsequently been withdrawn by resolution No.8.01 dated 29th Aug., 2002, the lands in question cannot be reconveyed in favour of the first respondent. 6. We have heard the parties and noticed the rival contentions, orders on record and the judgment passed by the learned single Judge. 6. We have heard the parties and noticed the rival contentions, orders on record and the judgment passed by the learned single Judge. From the Note for the Board as enclosed by the Housing Board with its typed set, it appears that number of buildings were constructed after publication of Notification u/s 4 (1). Having noticed that the lands were acquired for housing purpose and already certain construction has been made, the following suggestion was given in the said note: - "... All the above buildings are constructed after publishing the Notification. All these are illegally unapproved layouts. It is not necessary to give compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act since the above buildings were constructed after publishing the 4(1) Notification. While seeing the sketch given by the Special Tahsildar (L.A), excepting some lands buildings are available then and there. Hence acquisition should be done along buildings and comparing with Board layout and without affecting the buildings the same may be allotted to the land owner under ex-land owner category after collecting Administration Charges. By doing so, the landowner could avoid the court expenses. Moreover, the expenses incurred by the Board for the past 15 years to the Land Acquisition Staffs would not be wasted so that the Board will be benefited. The Government ordered vide G.O.Ms.No.667 dated 8. 81. In this the buildings constructed after publishing the 4(1) Notification, without giving exclusion, acquisition should be made along with the buildings and may be allotted to them after collecting the development charges. .... A resolution is requested in the decision of the proposal may be extended to other Villages for Land Acquisition Work. After taking a decision by the Board the same should be sent to Government for its approval. Because, if 4(1) Notification is not published before the 28. 1986 the Award of acquisition of these lands will not be used. Hence acquisition should be done along buildings and comparing with Board layout and without affecting the buildings the same may be allotted to the land owner under ex-land owner category after collecting Administration Charges. Hence acquisition should be done along buildings and comparing with Board layout and without affecting the buildings the same may be allotted to the land owner under ex-land owner category after collecting Administration Charges." .7. Hence acquisition should be done along buildings and comparing with Board layout and without affecting the buildings the same may be allotted to the land owner under ex-land owner category after collecting Administration Charges." .7. The aforesaid note given by the Chairman of the Housing Board was approved by Housing Board Resolution No.67/86 dated 2nd July, 1986, making it a guideline binding on the Housing Board. Pursuant to the said resolution, lands were reconveyed in favour of others, who had already constructed a house over their respective lands and for the said reason, at paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit, it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court that exemption could be granted by reconveying the lands where buildings have already come up and occupied by the land owners. So far as the case of the first respondent is concerned, the Division Bench directed to consider her case as per the aforesaid provision vide its judgment dated 4th Oct., 1996. The impugned order of rejection was issued on 23rd Feb., 2000, and, therefore, the appellant cannot derive any advantage of subsequent resolution No.8.01 of the Housing Board, dated 29th Aug., 2002. .8. Even if it is accepted that the first respondent has constructed her house after notification u/s 4 (1), in view of resolution No.67/86 dated 2nd July, 1986, she was entitled for allotment of land alongwith building in her favour after submitting the development charges. The resolution No.67/86 dated 2nd July, 1986, is not only applicable in case where buildings have been constructed prior to notification u/s 4 (1), but also in cases where notification issued after Section 4 (1), but acquisition has not reached finality. The aforesaid resolution has not been considered in proper perspective and having rejected the application of first respondent mechanically, learned single Judge rightly set aside the said order of rejection. 9. In this connection, one may only mention that resolution No.67/86 dated 2nd July, 1986, in fact, do not stipulate reconveyance of land. The said decision was taken to allot the same very land to the person, who was the owner of the land and constructed a building thereon. The word "reconveyance" was used by Division Bench, as in resolution No.67/86 dated 2nd July, 1986, it was required to be allotted in favour of such owner of the land and building subject to payment of development charges, etc. The word "reconveyance" was used by Division Bench, as in resolution No.67/86 dated 2nd July, 1986, it was required to be allotted in favour of such owner of the land and building subject to payment of development charges, etc. In view of such resolution relating to allotment of land in favour of the original land holder having a structure constructed thereon, the appellants cannot derive any advantage of the Supreme Court decision in Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Vs – Keeravani Ammal & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) CTC 447 . 10. In the facts and circumstances and in absence of any merit, interference with the substantive part of the judgment is not called for. However, we make it clear that the first respondent is entitled for allotment of land along with building constructed thereon to the extent of land on which she put up construction, as per layout/constructed area of the building with set back area, whichever is higher, after payment of the development charges. After allotment of such part of the land, if there remains any excess area beyond the constructed building/layout area with set back, the first respondent is not entitled for allotment of such excess land in her favour, though she may claim for compensation as per law. The judgment passed by the learned single Judge is modified to the extent above. The writ appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.