Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The lands, which belonged to the share of the appellants husband along with other vast area of land was acquired by the State prior to 1968. It was so acquired to develop and improve the land as a tank. Acquisition proceedings were completed, award passed and the land holders received their compensation. However, for about 28 years no action was taken for developing the total land, one Tirupur Sports Organisation – 3rd respondent herein, sought for transfer of property right of 71. 0 Hectares of land in survey No.655/1 and some others at Rakiapalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk, Coimbatore District. The said sports organisation, being a registered body, approved by the Government of India for getting funds, as it wanted to develop the land as a sports complex, the State of Tamil Nadu considered the matter; as the survey number was classified as Category, not in use, and as it was classified as a pond, and there being no pond and there being no incoming water/ayacut of the lands, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pollachi Division, the District Collector of Kovai and Commissioner of Land Administration, submitted favourable report to grant the aforesaid land and in that view, the State of Tamil Nadu, from its Department of Revenue (L2) issued G.O. (Standing) No.1136, dated 29th Oct., 1996 and transferred the right of the land in survey Nos.655/1, 673/1 & 2, 674/2 comprised at Rakiapalayam Village, Tiruppur Taluk, Coimbatore District, admeasuring an extent of 71. 0 Hectares in favour of Tirupur Sports Organisation with usual conditions as stipulated in Revenue Standing No.24. 2. After 34 years of acquisition and after six years from the date of transfer, the appellant preferred the writ petition in question – W.P. No.37097/02, challenging G.O. Ms. No.1136 dated 29th Oct., 1996 with further prayer to direct the 1st and 2nd espondent to resume the land measuring an extent of 71. 0 Hectares comprised in the aforesaid survey number. Learned single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, the present appeal was preferred against the order dated 25th June, 2004. 3. In the State of Tamil Nadu, lands are acquired for public purpose in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 0 Hectares comprised in the aforesaid survey number. Learned single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, the present appeal was preferred against the order dated 25th June, 2004. 3. In the State of Tamil Nadu, lands are acquired for public purpose in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under Section 48-B, provisions have been made to reconvey the land to the original owner where the Government is satisfied that the land vested with the Government under the Act is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose, subject to the original owner willing to repay the amount of compensation paid to him under the Act. The aforesaid Act and Section 48-B fell for consideration before Supreme Court, during the pendency of the writ petition, in Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Vs – Keeravani Ammal reported in 2007 (4) SCALE 423. In the said case, the Court held that Section 48-B introduced under the Act in the State of Tamil Nadu is an exception to the rule; such a provision has to be strictly considered and strict compliance with its terms was insisted upon. The Supreme Court, while held that the writ petitioners of the said case had not made out any case for interference by the Court, observed that it was not necessary for the Court in the said case to go into the scope of Section 48-B, that reconveyance could only be made to the original owner and not to others and where possession has already been made over to housing board. The matter was left open for decision by the High Court. 4. In view of the Supreme court decision in Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Vs – Keeravani ammal (supra), when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not pressing the prayer for reconveyance of the land in her favour and confined his argument in regard to legality and propriety of G.O. ms. No.1136 dated 29th Oct., 1996. No.1136 dated 29th Oct., 1996. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant was that, if the land is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, either it should be reconveyed to the original land holders or it could be used for other public purposes, but it cannot be transferred in favour of a Registered Society, which comes within the definition of a Company under the Act. It was submitted that the 3rd respondent is not a society established or administered by the Government and, therefore, do not come within the definition of Corporation owned or controlled by the State and was not entitled to derive any benefit of public purpose as defined under the Act. 5. On the other hand, according to the counsel for the State and the contesting respondent, the land having been transferred for construction of a sports complex, including stadium, it was open to the State to transfer such land for such public purpose. Reliance was placed on Letter No.F-25-2/2000-SP.I dated 29th Dec., 2000, issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India, addressed to the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. By the aforesaid letter, Government of India granted approval in principle for central financial assistance for the project with indoor stadium (Category-I) at Tiruppur by Tiruppur Sports Organisation, Tiruppur, Coimbatore District. Approval was granted for sanctioning a sum of Rs.60 lakhs towards construction of such indoor stadium at an estimated cost of Rs.120 Lakhs. The State Government was to sponsor and spend atleast 50% of their share i.e., rest of the Rs.60 Lakhs. Photographs were produced to suggest that the indoor stadium and sports complex was in half way construction when the writ petition was preferred in the year 2002. According to the counsel for the respondents, the appellant having given up the prayer for reconveyance, the writ was not maintainable at her instance, as it was not a public interest litigation. Reliance was placed in the counter-affidavit as was filed in the writ petition to show that an extent of 0.85 acres in SF No.673/1 was alone acquired from Mr.K.N.Palanisami Gounder, whose land devolved on the husband of the appellant. The remaining land was acquired from other persons. Reliance was placed in the counter-affidavit as was filed in the writ petition to show that an extent of 0.85 acres in SF No.673/1 was alone acquired from Mr.K.N.Palanisami Gounder, whose land devolved on the husband of the appellant. The remaining land was acquired from other persons. Counsel for the appellant, while submitted that the remaining land also belong to the relations of the appellants husband, including mother-in-law, in reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that others having not made any objection and total land having not devolved on the appellant, the appellant had no right to claim for reconveyance of the total land. 6. Counsel for the appellant relied on the definition of public purpose as contained in Section 3 (f) and submitted that though land could have been provided to any Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government, but it cannot be provided to a Registered Society, being a Company under the Act. 7. In the present case it is not necessary to determine whether the 3rd respondent is a Corporation or Company under the Act to derive advantage of the expression public purpose u/s 3 (f) of the Act. Such question can be determined in some appropriate case for the reason shown hereunder :- The question whether Government could assign the land to the erstwhile owner, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala – Vs – M.Baskaran Pillai reported in (1997) 5 SCC 432 . In the said case, the Supreme court held as follows :- "....... It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, if the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose for which the land is owned, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction could be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged under the directive principles of the Constitution. ........." From the decision aforesaid, it will be evident that (i) acquired lands can be used for other public purpose ; and (ii) otherwise, instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the lands should be put to public auction in order to fetch better amount for better utilisation for the public purpose. ........." From the decision aforesaid, it will be evident that (i) acquired lands can be used for other public purpose ; and (ii) otherwise, instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the lands should be put to public auction in order to fetch better amount for better utilisation for the public purpose. The expression public purpose as noticed in the case of State of Kerala – Vs – M.Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) cannot be construed to be same as defined u/s 3 (f) of the Act. 8. In the present case, as noticed, the lands were acquired in 1968 and total lands having not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, it has been given to the 3rd respondent for the construction of a sports complex, which in effect will allow the public in general to improve itself. It is in the welfare of the people. Further, the prayer for reconveyance having been given up by the appellant, particularly she having failed to show her right over the total land, which was transferred in favour of the 3rd respondent, except 0.85 acres, the writ petition preferred by her being adversary in nature and not a public interest litigation, there was no occasion to interfere with G.O. Ms. No.1136 dated 29th Oct., 1996, at her instance. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, while no interference is called for with the order passed by the learned single Judge, there being no merit, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.