Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order dated 13.07.2006, passed by the Government and consequently prayed for a direction to the 1st respondent to reconvey the property in S.No.171/1B, to an extent of 1.01 Acres in Koyambedu Village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District in his favour. 2. Pleadings disclose that the petitioner had purchased the property in the year 1991. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Government at the instance of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, for the formation of a neighborhood scheme known as K.K.Nagar, further extension scheme. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was prepared and published in G.O.(Rt.)No.221, Housing dated 29.08.1975 and the said G.O was published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette on 01.10.1975. Section 5(A) notice and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 28.09.1978. Challenge to these acquisition proceedings failed and ultimately an award was passed on 09.05.1985 in Proceedings No.Rc.4155/78 A-1 and a compensation of Rs.2,03,866.77, had been determined. 3. Seeking exclusion of the above said land, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 04.05.2003 to the 1st respondent. As no orders were passed, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.21358 of 2003 for a Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider his representation. By order dated 01.08.2003, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider his representation. 4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that though there was a direction, no orders were passed. In these circumstances, another writ petition W.P.No.6760 of 2006 was filed for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to re-convey the above said property to the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed on 09.03.2006. While dismissing, the writ petition, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner and positively consider and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the directions granted, the 1st respondent by his letter dated 13.07.2006, has rejected the request of the petitioner for re-conveyance of the land for the following reasons: "(i) Your factory is not functioning in S.No.171/1B of Koyambedu Village since 1991. A show cause notice has been issued to M/s. Eveready Asbestos Cement Pipe Company for non-utilisation of exempted land for the industrial purpose vide Govt.Lr.No.24899/R2/91/2, Revenue Department, dated 24.07.1991. A show cause notice has been issued to M/s. Eveready Asbestos Cement Pipe Company for non-utilisation of exempted land for the industrial purpose vide Govt.Lr.No.24899/R2/91/2, Revenue Department, dated 24.07.1991. (ii)Your land in S.No.171/1B of Koyambedu village lie in the middle of the site reserved for Whole Sale Food Grains Market – Phase II and it is surrounded by lands reserved for Whole Sale Textile Market, etc. of KWMC Complex. Your lands are located centrally and surrounded by lands on the eastern side, Southern side, Koyambedu Village on Western side and Senjeri Village on northern side. (iii)Your land is not situated on the edge/fringe of the scheme. The Selliamman Koil Temple in Nergkundram Village is far away from your land. (iv)Your land was not taken possession due to court case. (v)Your land is essentially required for the development of wholesale Food Grains Market, Phase-II." 5. Though, the petitioner has contended that the purpose for which, the land has been acquired namely the construction of Koyambedu Market is already over and therefore, there is no requirement for the Government to retain the land and in such circumstances having regard to the non-utility of the land for more than 31 years, the public purpose for which the land was acquired has now become non existence and therefore, he is entitled to get an order of re-conveyance as per Section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act, the said submission cannot be countenanced in view of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs. L.Chandrasekaran (Dead) by Lrs and Ors, reported in 2010(2) SCC 786 , where the Supreme Court at paragraph 29, held as follows: "29. Before concluding, we may notice the judgment of this Court in T.N.Housing Board v. Keeravani Ammal in 2007(9) SCC 255 . The question considered in that case was whether the Division Bench of the High Court could direct release of the acquired land which had been transferred to the appellant Board. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court at para 15 observed as follows: "15. We may also notice that once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court at para 15 observed as follows: "15. We may also notice that once a piece of land has been duly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the land becomes the property of the State. The State can dispose of the property thereafter or convey it to anyone, if the land is not needed for the purpose for which it was acquired, only for the market value that may be fetched for the property as on date of conveyance. The doctrine of public trust would disable the State from giving back the property for anything less than the market value. In State of Kerala V. M.Bhaskaran Pillai in 1997(5) SCC 432 , in a similar situation, this Court observed: (SCCp.433,para 4) 4. ... The question emerges whether the Government can assigned the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for the public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public auctions so that the public also gets benefits by getting a higher value." 6. The judgment of Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 7. In yet another decision in Smt.Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors, reported in Civil Appeal No.492 of 2007, the Supreme Court, at paragraph No.13, held as follows: "13. The judgment of Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 7. In yet another decision in Smt.Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors, reported in Civil Appeal No.492 of 2007, the Supreme Court, at paragraph No.13, held as follows: "13. So far as the change of user is concerned, it is a settled legal proposition that once land vests in the State free from all encumbrances, there cannot be any rider on the power of the State Government to change user of the land in the manner it chooses. In a similar situation, in Gulam Mustafa & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SCC 448 , this Court has held as under:- "Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it Uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the ....... declaration." 8. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the judgments of the Supreme Court, the petitioner has no legal right to insist that the lands should be reconveyed on the sole ground that it was not used for the purpose, which it was acquired. Besides, material on record shows that the Government Order in. G.O.Ms.No.62, Planning, Development and Special Initiatives (S.1), Department dated 24.06.2009, has allotted the land to Chennai Metro Rail Limited, for the purpose of establishing a full fledged depot with stabling and workshop facilities at Koyambedu for the Chennai Metro Rail project. 9. The averments made by the District Revenue Officer / Legal Officer, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., Chennai, requires consideration and they are extracted hereunder. "2. CMRL aims to provide a sustainable multi-modal transport network to reduce the sever traffic congestion currently faced in Chennai City. To corridors have been initially proposed for this purpose. This scheme is expected to benefit lakhs of common public on a daily basis by providing a valuable and convenient public transport system. The Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., proposes to locate Koyambedu Metro Station (Corridor-II), Metro Depot and other allied facilities. 3. The land requirements are technically very location specific. To corridors have been initially proposed for this purpose. This scheme is expected to benefit lakhs of common public on a daily basis by providing a valuable and convenient public transport system. The Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., proposes to locate Koyambedu Metro Station (Corridor-II), Metro Depot and other allied facilities. 3. The land requirements are technically very location specific. The petitioner states that getting possession of these lands are crucial as currently the Koyambedu station and depot contractors are in place and this land needs to be handed over to the contractor immediately for undertaking the metro rail station and ramp construction works. The larger public interest has been primarily kept in mind in selecting these lands. The Chennai Metro Rail is principally meant for the general public of the city and aims to solve the traffic congestion. If the aforesaid lands are not obtained and possession taken, huge disruption will be caused to the citizens of Chennai and no other land is available in the location for the above railway station facility. The first set of trains are expected to commence service in 2013, for which the above lands must be in possession of CMRL to enable commencement of construction by the end of 2010. 4. The above writ petition is filed challenging the rejection of the request for re-conveyance of the land already acquired for Koyambedu Market in Survey No.171/1B-extent 1.01 acres (Block No.37 new T.S.No.7, and the said Writ Petition is still pending before this Honble Court. The petitioner herein states that the land covered in the present Writ Petition is now transferred to the Chennai metro Rail Project for its Metro Rail Station Depot and other allied purposes by issuing a Government order in G.O.Ms.No.62, Planning Development and Spl. Initiatives (S.I) Department, dated 24th June 2009. Thereafter, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) issued another order in Proc.No.K2/879/2008 dated 19.05.2010 transferring the aforesaid land to the Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., along with another extent of land directed to be transferred to the CMRL by the Government. Initiatives (S.I) Department, dated 24th June 2009. Thereafter, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) issued another order in Proc.No.K2/879/2008 dated 19.05.2010 transferring the aforesaid land to the Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., along with another extent of land directed to be transferred to the CMRL by the Government. The petitioner therefore submits that CMRL is very much affected party and interested party in the subject matter of the writ petition, since the land covered under the present writ petition is ordered to be transferred to the petitioner herein by the Government by a valid Government order and therefore it is just and necessary that this Honble Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner herein as a party Respondent in the above writ petition, so that effective adjudication can be made in the above writ petition." 10. In support of his contention, the District Revenue Officer / Legal Officer, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., has produced before this Court, copies of the Government Order G.O.Ms.No.62, Planning, Development and Special Initiatives (S.1), Department dated 24.06.2009, and proceedings of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, dated 19.05.2010, by which, lands measuring an extent of 29.145 Hect. In Koyambedu, Senjeri and Nerkundram villages, as requested by Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., for their Depot have been handed over by CMDA, for execution of Chennai Metro Rail Project. 11. In view of the settled legal positions stated supra and the subsequent events, this Court is of the considered view that there is no manifest illegality in rejecting the request of the petitioner to reconvey the property land in S.No.171/1B, of an extent of 1.01 Acres in Koyambedu Village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District in his favour. 12. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.