Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 5.5.2009 and the subsequent order passed by the fourth respondent, dated 18.4.2011, and to direct the respondents to re-convey the property, in S.Nos.1410/1 and 1410/3, having an extent of 1.52 acres, situated in Senapiratti Village, Karur Taluk and District. 2. It has been stated that the property in question belonged to the petitioner. The said land had been utilized for agricultural purposes. While so, land acquisition proceedings had been initiated, in respect of 99.59 acres of land, in Senapiratti Village, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of a neighbourhood scheme. A draft notification had been issued, under Section 4(1) of the Act and it had been approved by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.996, Housing and Urban Development, dated 4.11.1982. Thereafter, an enquiry had been conducted, under Section 5A of the said Act. The petitioner had submitted his objections. However, the objections raised by the petitioner had been rejected. Thereafter, on 15.10.1984, a declaration had been made, under Section 6(1) of the Act and it had been published in the gazette, dated 14.11.1984. An award enquiry had been conducted, on 2.4.1986. Thereafter, the award had been passed, on 10.6.1987, vide Award No.02/87. However, no compensation had been received by the petitioner, till date. While so, the petitioner had made a request to the respondents to re-convey the lands in question, under Section 48-B of the Act. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the request made by the petitioner, under Section 48-B of the Act had been rejected by the respondents, arbitrarily. Some of the lands in question, in the area acquired by the respondents in Senapiratti Village, had been re-conveyed to their owners. However, the request of the petitioner had been rejected by the respondents, without adducing proper reasons for doing so. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent stating that the lands, in S.Nos.1410/1 and 1410/3, situated in Senapiratti Village, Karur Taluk and District, had been acquired for the formation of a neighbourhood scheme, in Karur Taluk and District. The said lands had been acquired, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent stating that the lands, in S.Nos.1410/1 and 1410/3, situated in Senapiratti Village, Karur Taluk and District, had been acquired for the formation of a neighbourhood scheme, in Karur Taluk and District. The said lands had been acquired, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A final award had been passed, on 10.6.1987, acquiring the lands in question. 5. It has also been stated that the lands referred to by the petitioner is required by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and it has been earmarked for locating a sewage disposal site, as per the approved lay out plan. 6. It has also been stated that 125 houses had been constructed in the lay out approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, in his proceedings, in LP DTCP No.425/98. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for re-conveying the lands in question had been rejected by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in its letter No.LA5(5)/9276/09, dated 5.5.2009. 7. It has also been stated that the possession of the land in question is with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and it is not with the state Government. Hence, the petitioner has no right to compel the state Government to reconvey the lands in question, under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had made a request to the state Government for re-conveying the land in question, in S.Nos.1410/1 and 1410/3, situated in Senapiratti Village, Karur Taluk and District, under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the request made by the petitioner had been rejected by the third and the fourth respondents stating that the said lands are required for the purpose of locating a sewage disposal site, as per the lay out plan approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, in his proceedings in LP DTCP No.425/98. 10. However, the request made by the petitioner had been rejected by the third and the fourth respondents stating that the said lands are required for the purpose of locating a sewage disposal site, as per the lay out plan approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, in his proceedings in LP DTCP No.425/98. 10. It has also been stated that the lands in question are vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, as it had been acquired for the purpose of formation of a neighbourhood scheme at Karur Taluk and District. 11. It is a well settled position in law that there is no right vested with the erstwhile owner of the lands in question to demand the re-conveyance of the lands, that had been acquired following the relevant provisions of the Act, especially, when the lands had been acquired for a specific public purpose. 12. In the present case, it has been categorically stated that the lands in question are required for location of a sewage disposal site, under the approved lay out plan, for locating the neighbourhood scheme. 13. Further, the lands in question are said to be vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, the state Government has no authority to reconvey the lands in question. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.