JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugner letter No.26128/Nee.A.4(2)/10-8, dated 10.03.2011 and quash the same consequently directing the respondents to reconvey the land situated in Survey No.196/5, 196/9, 197/7 situated at Maharajasamuthiram Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District to the petitioner.) 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed to quash an order passed by the second respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for re-conveyance of the already acquired lands and for a Mandamus seeking re-conveyance of the said property. 2. Admittedly, the writ petitioner's property was acquired by the Government for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by a 4(1) notification, dated 25.08.1986. It was followed by a declaration under 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was handed over to Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 3. As per the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, the land owners have filed W.P.No.9479 of 1986, challenging the acquisition proceedings. Though the writ petition was dismissed, the land owners filed Writ Appeal No.248 of 1997. The Hon'ble Division Bench by its order, dated 01.09.1997, quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not made within a period of three years from the date of 4(1) notification. According to the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, though liberty was granted to the Government to proceed afresh, no further acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Government. 4. The petitioner has sent a representation on 05.01.2004, requesting the Housing Board to hand over the property to him. Though other land owners were conferred with the said benefit and lands were re-conveyed, the petitioner's land were not re-conveyed to them. Hence, he made a representation again on 03.06.2006. Since there was no response, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12135 of 2010 to consider the representation. The said writ petition was allowed on 28.09.2010 directing the Housing Board to pass orders within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed the impugned order refusing to re-convey the acquired property stating that it comes within the scheme zone and the land is required for purposes of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 5. The said writ petition was allowed on 28.09.2010 directing the Housing Board to pass orders within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed the impugned order refusing to re-convey the acquired property stating that it comes within the scheme zone and the land is required for purposes of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 5. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner had contended that once acquisition has been quashed by the High Court, thereafter, the title automatically gets vested with the original land owners and hence, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board cannot contended that they still require the land. In case, if the Housing Board requires the said land, they should have availed the liberty granted by the Division Bench to proceed afresh. However, when the Housing Board has not chosen to re-initiate acquisition proceedings, the impugned order refusing to re-convey the lands is clearly un-sustainable to law. Hence, he prayed for allowing the Writ Petition. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents had contended that the acquisition proceedings have been completed and the land is required for further schemes by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and hence, the impugned order may be sustained and the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions made on either side. 8. Admittedly, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board have been quashed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.248 of 1997, dated 01.09.1997. Though liberty was granted to the Housing Board to proceed afresh, no fresh acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the Government. In such an event, automatically, the Government as well as the Housing Board lose their title to the acquired land. The acquired lands re-gained the character of private patta lands of all the original owners from whom the properties were unsuccessfully acquired. 9. When the original owners have automatically re-gained their title and possession over the acquired properties, the question of approaching the Housing Board for re-conveyance of the said property does not even arise. Only when the acquisition proceedings have been completed and the land has remained un-utilized for many years, the question of the land owner approaching the beneficiary for re-conveyance would arise. Only when the acquisition proceedings have been completed and the land has remained un-utilized for many years, the question of the land owner approaching the beneficiary for re-conveyance would arise. In the present case, neither the Government nor the Housing Board have got any title or legal possession to the acquired property, in view of the quashing of the acquisition proceedings by a Division Bench of Madras High Court. Hence, the representation made by the writ petitioner to the Housing Board seeking re-conveyance is an unnecessary exercise. The petitioner continues to be the owner of the property having legal possession of the same. The impugned order passed by the second respondent as if they are having title and possession over the property has no legs to stand and the same is quashed. It is not necessary for the Housing Board or the Government to execute any re-conveyance in favour of the writ petitioner. The title and legal possession of the writ petitioner has got restored automatically, once the acquisition proceedings are quashed by the High Court. 10. With the above said observations, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.