Judgment :- 1. The petitioner made a representation dated 9.4.2013 to the 1st respondent seeking to reconvey the lands that were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by passing an Award dated 23.9.1986. 2. The 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.5.2013 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 9.4.2013. 3. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the aforesaid order of the 1st respondent dated 29.5.2013. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned land acquired is the land available to the family of the petitioner. It is also stated that the property is not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. Hence, the 1st respondent committed error in passing the impugned order and the same has to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order. The award was passed in the year 1986. Now, the petitioner cannot ask for reconveying of the lands under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act). 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 8. Even as per the representation of the petitioner dated 9.4.2013 based on which the impugned order was passed, the award was passed in Award No.11/86 dated 23.9.1986. Now above 27 years have lapsed. At this juncture, the petitioner has sought for reconveying the land. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Section 48-B of the Act and submitted that the Government could reconvey the land, if the land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. 10. In this regard, it is useful to extract Section 48-B of the Act which reads as follows: "48-B. Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases: W here the Government are satisfied that the land vest in the Government under this Act is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, or for any other public purpose, the Government may transfer such land to the original owner who is willing to repay the amount paid to him under this Act for the acquisition of such land inclusive of the amount referred to in sub-section (1-A) and (2) of section 23, if any, paid under this Act." 11. Though the petitioner has stated that the land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, the same was disputed in the impugned order. 12. In any event, Section 48-B of the Act makes it clear that the Government can use it for any other public purpose also. Therefore, the land owner could not ask to reconvey the land. The 1st respondent has given three reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Those three reasons are as follows: "a. Government have acquired the land for the public purpose, after following the land acquisition procedure and after duly making payment of compensation amount to the land owners for the utilization of the land by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited. b. During the land acquisition process, till issuing notifications, sanction of compensation enquires, you have not raised any objection for taking over the land by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited for the public purpose. c. Now, after the lapse of several years, it is not possible to reconvey the land mentioned in your representation since the land is being used by the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited." 13. In view of all the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 29.5.2013. As rightly stated by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, after a lapse of several years, the petitioner cannot simply ask to reconvey the land. 14. In the result, the Writ Petition is fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.