JUDGMENT :- Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to direct the 1st respondent to give road access to the petitioner to the road constructed by the 1st respondent around the Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium, Cochin, constructed by the 1st respondent. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and have also perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the sketches and photographs produced by both parties. 3. The Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium was constructed by the GCDA by acquiring land in 1994 from various persons. Around the Stadium, the GCDA has constructed ring roads, which are now public roads, connecting the main road with residential colonies located South of the stadium. Around the ring roads the GCDA has constructed boundary walls, beyond which are the properties of private land owners. The appellant is one of the persons who have land a little beyond the boundary wall of the GCDA property. The case of the appellant is that properties of his relatives were acquired by the GCDA, and at the time of acquisition, there was a commitment by the GCDA to provide road access to land owners, whose lands were acquired for construction of the Stadium and the ring road around the Stadium. Even though in an earlier occasion in a petition filed by the appellant, this Court had given an opportunity to the appellant to establish the commitment given by the GCDA to him or to his family members to provide road access, the appellant could not establish it before the GCDA. In the Writ Petition filed, the learned Single Judge also found that there is no proof for the claim of the appellant, and so much so, his request was turned down. It is against this judgment, this Writ Appeal has been filed. 4. During hearing we noticed that the GCDA has retained only the privacy of the Stadium but access to the Stadium is through a road constructed by the GCDA, which is now part of the public road connecting the housing colonies to the main road. In other words, the access road to the Stadium and the ring roads around the Stadium are now public roads allowed to be used by all people. In other words, the access road to the Stadium and the ring roads around the Stadium are now public roads allowed to be used by all people. While the contention raised by the appellant is that two persons are given access to the GCDA road, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GCDA clarified that only one person is given road access and that is in consideration of free surrender of his land for the Stadium as per the agreement, whereunder he was entitled to get road access to his property as consideration for free surrender of his property. 5. After hearing both sides, we do not find that the appellant has established any right to get road access to the GCDA road under any agreement or undertaking given by the GCDA. All the land owners except the one referred to above were compensated for the land acquired and therefore nobody has a right to claim access to the road constructed by the GCDA around the Stadium as part of consideration for acquisition. The person, who surrendered land free of cost specifically requested for road access and the same was rightly granted by the GCDA. Others, who have collected compensation under the Land Acquisition Act are not entitled to access to GCDA road as a matter of right. However, what we feel is that since the road has become a public road, it would be wise on the part of the GCDA to give access to neighbouring land owners by collecting consideration for the facility provided. When road access is given to neighbouring land owners, the value of such land goes up substantially high, and the GCDA can for providing road access collect consideration keeping in mind the massive expenditure incurred by them for land acquisition and road construction. This is one way for recouping part of the massive expenditure of over Rs.100 crores spent and massive interest burden suffered by the GCDA for construction of the Stadium, which has not yielded any substantial return to the GCDA. It is a notorious fact that the financial commitment for the construction of the Stadium virtually depleted the funds of the GCDA, which has virtually put an end to all development projects which the GCDA ought to have otherwise undertaken and completed. 6. It is a notorious fact that the financial commitment for the construction of the Stadium virtually depleted the funds of the GCDA, which has virtually put an end to all development projects which the GCDA ought to have otherwise undertaken and completed. 6. We, therefore, feel that since the GCDA ring roads around the stadium are public roads, it would be in the interest of the GCDA to frame guidelines for collecting consideration for giving road access to the neighbouring land owners including the appellant, and on payment of consideration to allow opening up of road access to GCDA road around the Stadium at suitable places. In order to avoid controversy and corruption in the deals, we direct the GCDA to put up the final proposal for providing road access to the GCDA road to any applicant to the District Collector for his approval, and on receipt of the proposal the District Collector shall personally conduct inspection, consider the reasonableness of the consideration to be received by the GCDA and approve the same thereafter. Consideration should be collected from all land owners benefited by the road access to be given. The road access should be provided to land owners without any right to transfer or share the same with other land owners without the prior approval and on payment of further consideration to the GCDA. This Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed in part by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge with a direction to the GCDA to frame guidelines and publish the same so that all land owners on payment of consideration to the GCDA can get access to the GCDA road around the Stadium, which is now public road.