Judgment 1. Petitioner prays for issuance of writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the impugned G.O.Ms.No.658 dated 07.12.2010, of the Revenue Department, vide which the land falling in S.Nos.36,45 and 63 at Ponneri Taluk, No.76, Thatchur-1, Mathura ii, Madharavam village, measuring 1.26.0(A) 3.11 acres has been ordered to be exchanged with the land of M/s. Nelcast Company. 2. The challenge to the exchange, is on the ground that the land exchanged is classified as Thangal Poramboke, therefore, cannot be exchanged under BSO 26-A, which read as under: BSO 26-A. EXCHANGE OF LAND AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR PRIVATE LAND 1. When exchange may be made.-The grant of land, at the disposal of the Government for land owned privately may be made in circumstances such as the following: (i) Where a river, waterway, cart-track etc., has changed its course through a private holding, the owner is willing to relinquish the land covered by the actual course in exchange for the portion registered in the accounts as river, etc., (ii) for straightening the course of a channel, pathway, etc., or where a channel, pathway, etc., splits up a holding into two and it can be diverted along the boundary of the holding without any inconvenience to the public. (iii) where it is desirable to prohibit any cultivation in the bed of an irrigation tank or river and the private owner is willing to relinquish the land situated in such bed in exchange for land at the disposal of the Government; (iv) where small extents of private land not exceeding 25 cents in each case are required for public purposes such as minor improvements in irrigation sources or construction of chavadies, cattle pounds, wells or schools; Note: If any permanent structure is to be built on the land required it must invariable be required whatever the extent of the land or its cost may be. G.O.Ms.2853, Rev., d.19-9-39. B.P. Press 18, d.1-3-39 (v) where by an act of the Government, a private holding or any portion thereof has been rendered valueless or has been diminished in value and the private owner is willing to take land at the disposal of the Government in exchange for such holding or portion, as the case may be. G.O.Ms.2853, Rev., d.19-9-39. B.P. Press 18, d.1-3-39 (v) where by an act of the Government, a private holding or any portion thereof has been rendered valueless or has been diminished in value and the private owner is willing to take land at the disposal of the Government in exchange for such holding or portion, as the case may be. (vi) where a private owner is willing to provide land for the extension of village sites in exchange for land at the disposal of the Government; (vii) where a private owner is willing to relinquish small extents of land not exceeding 25 cents in each case for the consolidation of his holding. 2. Mode of Exchange. - Such exchange should take the form of a relinquishment of the land privately owned and of an assignment subject to the usual conditions of the land at the disposal of the Government. 3. Encumbrance certificate to be produced. -Great care should be taken to see that the party who relinquishes any land has absolute rights thereto and that the relinquishment is unconditional. In cases where the value of the land to be relinquished exceeds Rs.100, the production of an encumbrance certificate by the party at his cost should be insisted on before the relinquishment is accepted. In other cases, an encumbrance certificate should be called for if there is any doubt about the title of the person relinquishing the land. 4. Powers of sanction. - Where the value of the land at the disposal of the government, which is granted in exchange exceeds the value of the land relinquished, the difference should invariably be collected from the party concerned. Where the assignment is made subject to the usual conditions, the exchange may be sanctioned by the Collector, if the value of the land assigned does not exceed Rs.1,000 and by the Board of Revenue if such value does not exceeds Rs.10,000. The sanction of the Government should be obtained if the value of the land assigned exceeds Rs.10,000 or if any departure is to be made from the usual conditions of assignment or if the case falls under section 31(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (i of 1894) 5. The sanction of the Government should be obtained if the value of the land assigned exceeds Rs.10,000 or if any departure is to be made from the usual conditions of assignment or if the case falls under section 31(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (i of 1894) 5. Cancellation of exchange: If after a private holding or any portion thereof has been relinquished, it is found objectionable to assign the land at the disposal of the Government or if the assignment made is set aside on appeal or revision, the immediate superior of the officer who accepted the relinquishment or the authority which set aside the order of the assignment, as the case may be, may cancel the order accepting the relinquishment and restore the land to its owner." 3. Petitioner is in possession of the land measuring 12245 sq.ft or 28.11 cents, situated in S.No.36, Madhavaram village, Hamlet of Thatchoor, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, who has put up thatched hut, and fenced all the four sides of the land, and dig up a well for irrigation and also planted coconut saplings. 4. The petitioner is carrying on business on this land. It is not disputed the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of this land, which belongs to the Government. 5. The petitioner has filed a civil suit O.S.No.8 of 1996 against the 6th respondent-General Manager for declaration of title in the District Munsif court, Ponneri. 6. It is the submission of the petitioner that at the behest of the 6th respondent, attempt was made by the Inspector of Police, Ponneri, to dispossess the petitioner, which forced the petitioner to file W.P.No.1898 of 2009. The writ petition, was disposed of, by this court by directing the competent Revenue Authority, not to dispossess the petitioner without proper notice and giving opportunity to the petitioner to file objections i.e to follow due process of law. 7. The case of the petitioner is that, when the civil suit was at final stage of argument, an application was filed by the 6th respondent, to reopen the suit by leading additional evidence by placing in record the impugned order of exchange. 8. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction of the State Government to exchange the land, classified as thangal poramboke. 9. 8. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction of the State Government to exchange the land, classified as thangal poramboke. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under BSO 26-A, referred to above, the Government has no jurisdiction to exchange any land other than the one covered under BSO. The lands exchanged being not covered under the BSO, the impugned order is thus without jurisdiction which cannot be sustained in law. 10. Writ petition is contested by the respondents on the ground of locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition. Learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently contended, that the petitioner is not entitled to equitable discretionary relief under the Article 226 of the Constitution, as he is guilty of encroachment of Government land, is unauthorisedly, as it is clear from the averments in the affidavit itself, and also from the earlier order passed by this court, wherein the liberty has been given to the State, to dispossess the petitioner by following due process of law. 11. There is force in the contention, raised by learned Additional Government Pleader, a person guilty of encroachment of Government land, does not have locus standi to challenge the exchange. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. BSO-26(A) deals with a particular type of land and procedure of exchange. It does not bar the exchange of other land belonging to the Government. In absence of statutory bar against the exchange, the owner of the property has every right to exchange the land belonging to him and this principle applies to Government also. The only restriction can be that the Government land should not be exchanged with the land of lesser value, as Government is bound to protect public interest. 13. The impugned order of exchange has not been challenged, on the ground of arbitrariness or on the ground of undue benefit to 6th respondent, now exchange is said to be against public interest. 14. The reading of the impugned order shows, that the public interest has been duly protected, as land of equal value along with additional price is taken in exchange. 14. The reading of the impugned order shows, that the public interest has been duly protected, as land of equal value along with additional price is taken in exchange. The exchange is therefore in public interest, in absence of any specific statutory bar restraining the Government from exchanging the land belonging to it, the exchange cannot be challenged by a person having no interest in the property being in unlawful occupation. The writ petition is also not competent, as admittedly civil suit is pending, where it was open to petitioner to challenge the validity of exchange. 15. No merits. Dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.