Order: 1. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions are similar in nature, a common order has been passed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 3. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the Government Orders, made in G.O.Ms.No.164, dated 21-07-2008, permitting the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai, the second respondent in the above writ petitions, to withdraw the earlier resolution, dated 24-06-1994, relating to the reconveyance of the lands in question to the erstwhile owners and to proceed with the housing scheme for which the lands had been acquired. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the lands in question had been acquired for the purpose of the housing scheme, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. While so, by a resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, passed in its meeting, held on 24-06-1994, it had been resolved to recommend to reconvey the lands to their erstwhile owners, as there was no proper access to the said lands, and as they were far away from the Highway concerned. Further, there was no sufficient demand for houses to be constructed in the area concerned and that Wallajah had not been included in the model town selected by the Government. 5. The learned counsel had further submitted that, based on the said resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the petitioners have made several representations to the authorities concerned, to reconvey the lands in question, under Section 48-B of the Act. Whileso, the first respondent had passed the impugned orders in G.O.Ms.No.164, Housing and Urban Development (LA.2(1)) Department, dated 21-07-2008 resolving to withdraw the proposal to reconvey the lands to the ex-owners, by way of the earlier resolution, dated 24-06-1994. Aggrieved by the said Government Order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: i. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Uma Maheswari Ramasamy ( 2011 (5) CTC 503 ) ii. W.P.Nos 23134 to 23136 of 2005 dated 19-11-2007 in Seeranga Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: i. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Uma Maheswari Ramasamy ( 2011 (5) CTC 503 ) ii. W.P.Nos 23134 to 23136 of 2005 dated 19-11-2007 in Seeranga Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 6. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the requests made by the petitioners, under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been rejected. Thereafter, 233 plots had been allotted to various persons, based on the impugned G.O.Ms.No.164 Housing and Urban Development (LA.2(1)) Department, dated 21-07-2008. He has further submitted that the petitioners have no right to claim that the lands in question should be reconveyed to them, based on the earlier resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, dated 24-06-1994. He has further submitted that the lands which had been acquired from the petitioners are being utilised for the housing scheme proposed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In such circumstances, the petitioners have no right, whatsoever, to claim that the lands in question should be reconveyed to them, as per the resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, dated 24-06-1994. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have no right to claim that the lands in question should be reconveyed to them, based on the resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, dated 24-06-1994. 8. It is a well settled position in law that the erstwhile owners of the lands which had been acquired can only make a representation for the reconveyance of the land, under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if such lands are not required by the acquiring authority. However, it is clear that there is no vested right in them to claim that such lands should be reconveyed to them. 9. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners cited supra, cannot be held to be supporting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. In fact, the lands in question is being used for the purpose of providing house sites, as per the housing scheme proposed earlier. 9. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners cited supra, cannot be held to be supporting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. In fact, the lands in question is being used for the purpose of providing house sites, as per the housing scheme proposed earlier. It is also noted that 233 plots had already been allotted to third parties, who are not parties in the present writ petitions. 10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the above writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are devoid of merits. Hence the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.