Judgment :- This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent, relating to Letter No.13354/LA 4(2)/07-03, dt.19.03.2009, quash the same and to direct the first respondent to reconvey the land, in S.No.83/1 situated in Iyyamperumalpatty, in Salem Taluk and District, to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had stated that the agricultural lands measuring 1 acre and 12 cents, in S.No.83/1, situated in Iyyamperumalpatty, in Salem Taluk and District, belongs to him. It was acquired for putting up constructions, under the Neighbourhood scheme under G.O.Ms. No. 538, Housing and Urban Development department, dated 07.07.84. 3. Since, the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the petitioner had made a request, on 01.09.1995, to reconvey the land to him. The said request was not considered by the authorities concerned. Therefore, he had filed a writ petition, in W.P.No.15108 of 1995, before this Court. Since, the said Writ petition has been dismissed, the petitioner has filed a Writ Appeal in, W.A.No.271 of 2005. The said Writ Appeal has been disposed of on 28.10.2008 , permitting the petitioner to make a fresh application. Based on the order passed by this Court on 28.10.2008, the petitioner has filed an application, under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984(Act 1 of 1894), before the first respondent, praying for the reconveyance of the property in question. He had also undertaken to repay the amount received as compensation. On 19.03.2009, the first respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the aforesaid relief. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner by the impugned order, dated 19.03.2009, without considering the relevant factors. Proper reasons have not been given by the first respondent, while rejecting the request of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in possession of the land, till date and he has been cultivating the same. The land acquired for the purpose of neighbourhood scheme, under G.O.Ms.No.538, Housing and Urban Development department, dated 07.07.84, had not been used for the said purpose. Necessary approval had not been granted by the Commissioner, Salem Municipality, for developing the land acquired from the petitioner. The land acquired for the purpose of neighbourhood scheme, under G.O.Ms.No.538, Housing and Urban Development department, dated 07.07.84, had not been used for the said purpose. Necessary approval had not been granted by the Commissioner, Salem Municipality, for developing the land acquired from the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 19.03.2009, rejecting the request of the petitioner, is devoid of merits. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the possession of land in question had been taken by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, from the acquisition officer, on 19.11.1996. An extent of 8.72 acres of land, including the land in question, had been developed and the lay out was prepared and approved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, vide Lr.No.TP.No.53/07, dated 05.12.2007 and the same has been sent to the Director of Town and Country Planning, for the necessary approval. After the approval of the layout, the scheme will be implemented by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Since, the land in question is acquired for the implementation of the Salem Neighbourhood Scheme, the request of the petitioner for the reconveyance of the land, in S.No.83/1, measuring an extent of 1.00 acre and 12 cents, in Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem District, cannot be complied with. Therefore, his request for the reconveyance of the land had been rejected. 6. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had also placed before this Court, a decision of the Supreme Court, in Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Keeravani Ammal and others, reported in 2007(2) CTC 447 , wherein, it had been held that when the land Acquisition proceedings had been completed and an award had been passed and the possession of the land had been taken and the compensation had been deposited, no plea for reconveyance can be made, under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act 1894(Act 1 of 1894), when no material is produced by the claimant to substantiate the claim of abondonment. Mere claim of possession by the claimant cannot be a foundation to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by him. 7. The learned counsels had also placed before this Court a decision of the Supreme Court, in G.V.Krishna Setty and 7 others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu etc. Mere claim of possession by the claimant cannot be a foundation to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by him. 7. The learned counsels had also placed before this Court a decision of the Supreme Court, in G.V.Krishna Setty and 7 others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu etc. reported in 2008(4) CTC 657 , wherein it was held that Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act 1894(Act 1 of 1894) does not give any right to the claimant for reconveyance of the land. The said section merely empowers the Government to re-convey, provided the conditions specified in the said section are fulfilled. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition. From the decisions cited by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents it is clear that the petitioner cannot claim any right, under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act 1894(Act 1 of 1894) for the reconveyance of the property in question . Further, it has been stated by the respondents that the acquired land had been developed and a lay out had been prepared and approved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, vide Lr.No.TP.No.53/07, dated 05.12.2007 and the same has been sent to the Director of Town and Country Planning, for the necessary approval. After the approval of the layout, the scheme would be implemented by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. It is also seen from the records that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has undertaken to implement the scheme after the necessary approval of the lay out is granted. It has been stated by the respondents that the entire land has been acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, for the implementation of the Salem Neighbourhood Scheme, the request of the petitioner, for the reconveyance of land in S.No.83/1, measuring an extent of 1.00 acre and 12 cents, in Ayyamperumalpatti Village, Salem District, cannot be complied with. Therefore, even if the petitioner had been in possession of the land in question, it cannot give him any additional right to claim reconveyance of the land in question, as held in the decisions referred above. Therefore, even if the petitioner had been in possession of the land in question, it cannot give him any additional right to claim reconveyance of the land in question, as held in the decisions referred above. Further, it is clear that Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act 1894(Act 1 of 1894) is only an enabling provision, which empowers the government to reconvey the land in question, provided the conditions specified in the Section are fulfiled. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected M.P. is closed.