Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the first respondent to consider the representation, of the petitioner dated 7.1.2009, followed by the reminder, dated 6.4.2009, under section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996, to retransfer the lands of the petitioner, having an extent of 6.03 acres in S.No.23/2 and 76 cents in S.No.23/1, situated in Ganapathi Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District forming part of the notification issued, under section 4 of the Act, issued in G.O.Ms.No.586, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 11.8.1983. 2. At this stage of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if a direction is issued to the first respondent to consider the representation, dated 7.1.2009, made by the petitioner, under section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996, and to retransfer the land in question. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that the award relating to the land acquisition proceedings in question has been passed in the year, 1986. The petitioner has made a representation to the first respondent, on 7.1.2009, after a lapse of about 23 years, making a request to the first respondent to consider the return of the property to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent had further submitted that the entire extent of lands acquired by the first respondent had been handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the third respondent herein, in the year, 1986, and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had utilized the entire lands for the purpose of the housing scheme for which they had been acquired. In such circumstances, the first respondent cannot consider the representation of the petitioner, as requested by him, at this stage. 5. In view of the said submissions, made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the request of the petitioner to direct the first respondent, to consider the representation, dated 7.1.2009, would not arise at this stage. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.