it is advisable to consult any High Court lawyer along with the relevant documents

Once land is acquired for a public purpose through a valid acquisition and vested in the state, the claimants are not entitled to restoration of possession on the ground that either the original public purpose has ceased to be in operation or that the land has been put to some other use, the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench consisting of Justices P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan said: “Once the land is acquired, it vests in the state free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the owner how his land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the state. He has only a right to get compensation for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any ground whatsoever.”

What are WPs referred  here talk about.

The referred WPs are of different subject, i.e., they have been filed to quash the acquisition proceedings

The petitioner seeks for a direction to consider the representation for grant of no objection certificate so as to develop the property in S No. 643/2A1A old survey no. 643 measuring an extent of 0.11.5 hectares and survey no.660/2B measuring 0.05.5 hectares respectively at Hosur Village, Krishnagiri District. In this writ petitionmthe high court of Madras hasd stated that the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear in person or through his counsel before the authority of the Board on 16.11.2015, produce all documents to the satisfaction of the Board. If in the event the petitioner is unable to produce documents for certain survey numbers, then the petitioner may restrict the claim for grant of 'no objection' only in respect of the lands for which all documents have been produced to the satisfaction of the respondent Board. This concession however will not prejudice the petitioner, as liberty will be there to the petitioner to separately agitate the matter in respect of the other survey numbers at a later point of time.

Your case is totally different to this subject which you have referred.

The legal fact is the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, 

There is a provision in the latest land acquisition amended act that:

Return of unutilized land: In case land remains unutilized after acquisition, the new Bill empowers states to return the land either to the owner or to the State Land Bank.

Hence you may contact an advocate practicing in high court to file a writ petition for restitution the land acquired and not utilized for the purpose it was acquired, by expressing your willingness to repay the compensation amount received in this regard.

Unable to find any such order copy online 

please note in view of SC judgment counted herein above you cannot seek restoration of possession on any grounds what so ever 

Instead of looking for the desired copy you may better file a writ petition as suggested. 

That may fetch you the proper and quick relief. 

This is ruled by SC that Put land to original use or return it.

There is no such judgment that If land not used for 30 years it should be returned to land owners 

It is not just under the old central Land Acquisition Act 1894, but even under state laws, land is acquired and not used for decades, making a mockery of the whole exercise. This was revealed in a judgment of the Supreme Court last week involving the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. In 1991, the state government reserved for acquisition prime land in Mumbai's Vikhroli suburb for laying additional railway tracks. Even more than a decade later, no steps were taken by the authorities to utilise the land and no explanation was given. The land use was changed and the plan was to build a road. The land owner, Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co, then moved the Bombay High Court arguing the state government had no power to change the usage. Its writ petition was dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court ruling and quashed the notification due to the long lapse of time. Recently, the Supreme Court had passed several judgments in cases in which the land was not utilised for more than five years after acquisition and, therefore, the new law was applied and acquisitions were quashed. Even last week, in a large batch of cases, the court invoked Section 24 (2) of the 2013 law to set aside the acquisitions (Karnail Kaur vs state of Punjab).

Return of land is rare in India, where conflicts have risen as highways and factories are built in one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Acquisition of the property has already been completed by the housing board it is not your headache it is believed that you have received a compensation in this regard in case you have not received compensation for transfer apple and then you can file a writ petition in High Court for the cancellation of acquisition making the party to the housing board and land  acquisition officer of state

Land Acquisition Act, 2013 states that land not utilised for 5 years should be returned to the owner, but the amendment proposed by the NDA government intends to change to 5 years or any period specified at the time of setting up the project.

But if more than 80% of the area acquired by Tamil Nadu housing board have been developed then land will be considered as utilised land so undeveloped area will not be returned to owners of that land. 

There is no such type of judgement but The Bill, as introduced in Parliament on September 7, 2011, did not include the provision for return of acquired land to land owners..

Return back to owners if not used for 5 years.

Yes noc is mandatorily required for the same