Judgment :- M.Y. EQBAL, C.J & T.S.Sivagnanam, J. This Writ Petition has been filed as a pro bono publico for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Government Order in G.O.(Ms.) No.85, Revenue [Va.Nee 1(2)] Department, dated 09.03.2012 from the 1st respondent, and quash the same as illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. 2. The brief facts, which are relevant and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, are stated herein below: (i) It is stated that the petitioner is a social worker and the President of a political party namely., Tamil Thesa Pothu Vudaimai Katchi operating in the State of Tamil Nadu. He is also one of the Convenor of the Tamil University Protection Movement, Thanjavur in which several Tamil scholars, prominent citizens and persons interested in the protection of Tamil literature and culture are actively participating. According to him, the Government of Tamil Nadu way back in the year 1981 felt the need for the establishment of a separate University dedicated exclusively for the study of Tamil language and therefore, started preliminary steps for the constitution of the same. In the High Level Meeting chaired by the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu held on 13.06.1981 it was decided to acquire at least 1000 acres of land for the proposed Tamil University for its present and future use. For the purpose of acquiring the required land an Ordinance called the Tamil University Ordinance, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Ordinance 10 of 1981) was promulgated by the Governor of Tamil Nadu on 1st August, 1981. Following the said Ordinance, the Government of Tamil Nadu acquired an extent of 1000 acres of land near Thanjavur and transferred those land to the Tamil University. Subsequently, the Tamil University Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.9 of 1982) was passed by the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly repealing the 1981 Ordinance and it received the assent of the Governor on 08.03.1982 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extra Ordinary on 09.03.1982. From then onwards the Tamil University started functioning in Thanjavur. (ii) It is alleged that to the petitioner’s shock and surprise, he came to know that the Government of Tamil Nadu has decided to construct a new District Collector’s Office Complex within the premises of the Tamil University. From then onwards the Tamil University started functioning in Thanjavur. (ii) It is alleged that to the petitioner’s shock and surprise, he came to know that the Government of Tamil Nadu has decided to construct a new District Collector’s Office Complex within the premises of the Tamil University. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other persons, who are genuinely interested in saving the Tamil University from its slow death, due to the unauthorised alienation of its property, joined together and started movement to protect the Tamil University. On enquiry, the petitioner further came to know that the 1st respondent herein has passed the impugned Government Order in G.O.(Ms.) No.85, Revenue Department dated 09.03.2012 for the transfer of the land to an extent of 61.42 acres belonging to the Tamil University to the Revenue Department for the purpose of construction of District Collector’s Office Complex. It is stated that as per the impugned Government Order the 1st respondent - Principal Secretary has exercised the power given to the Government under Board of Revenue Standing Order No.24 for transfer of the lands belonging to the Tamil University to the Revenue Department. According to the petitioner, neither the Standing Order No.24 of the Board of Revenue nor any other standing orders confers any such power to the State Government to transfer, alienate or disinvest the lands and properties vested with the Tamil University under the Tamil University Act, 1982. (iii) It is stated that the minutes recorded and signed by the Registrar and Secretary of the Syndicate dated 10.09.2011 shows that apparently a meeting of the Syndicate was held in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat at Chennai on 03.09.2011 for the purpose of transferring the lands belonging to the Tamil University to the Revenue Department in which two officials of the Government of Tamil Nadu and three Professors/Heads of the Departments of the Tamil University and one Professor from the University of Madras had participated. The Vice-Chancellor of the Tamil University never participated in the proceedings. The Secretary of the Tamil Development and Information Department, Government of Tamil Nadu cannot participate in the Syndicate meeting since he is not one of the Ex-officio Member stipulated in Section 21 of the Tamil University Act, 1982. The three Heads of the Departments, who had participated in the deliberations were also not qualified to participate in the Syndicate meetings. The Secretary of the Tamil Development and Information Department, Government of Tamil Nadu cannot participate in the Syndicate meeting since he is not one of the Ex-officio Member stipulated in Section 21 of the Tamil University Act, 1982. The three Heads of the Departments, who had participated in the deliberations were also not qualified to participate in the Syndicate meetings. The sub-Clause (5) of Clause 1 Ex Officio Members stated in Section 21 of the Act says that three members from among the Deans of the University nominated by rotation in the order of seniority. According to the petitioner, the three University Professors, who had participated in the deliberations were neither seniors nor nominated as Members of the Syndicate. Therefore, the said proceedings and deliberations were illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil University Act. According to the petitioner, even if one assumes that it was a valid Syndicate meeting, the decision taken in the said meeting viz., to transfer the land belonging to the University to the Revenue Department was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, because neither the Tamil University Act nor any other rules framed thereunder confers any power to the Syndicate to transfer the lands belonging to the University to the Revenue Department. It is stated that the 1st respondent Principal Secretary has passed the impugned order transferring the lands belonging to the University to the Revenue Department, but according to the petitioner, the impugned order does not indicate from where the 1st respondent had derived power to transfer the lands belonging to the Tamil University to the Revenue Department. According to the petitioner the lands in question were got vested with the Tamil University by virtue of statutory enactment viz., Tamil University Act, 1982 and not by way of Government Order, and therefore, the resumption of lands from the University cannot be done under the Board of Revenue Standing Orders. It is stated that the Board of Revenue Standing Orders have no statutory force, and hence, it cannot override the legislative enactment namely., The Tamil University Act, 1982. Therefore, the said transfer of land is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. (iv) It is stated that the taking back of the land belonging to the University under the guise of public purpose is a clear misnomer. Therefore, the said transfer of land is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. (iv) It is stated that the taking back of the land belonging to the University under the guise of public purpose is a clear misnomer. Already fifty acres of land belonging to the Tamil University was illegally transferred to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the purpose of constructing residential apartments, which were later sold to private individuals. Finally, it is stated that there is absolutely no public purpose involved in the construction of the District Collector?s Office Complex in the lands acquired and vested with the Tamil University. Therefore, the impugned Government Order dated 09.03.2012 is arbitrary, unjustified, illegal and without jurisdiction. 3(i) On behalf of the 1st respondent -Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department the Joint Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai has filed a detailed counter stating inter alia that the allegation that the Syndicate of the University has no power or authority to sell or transfer or alienate the properties of the University is misconceived. It is stated that as per Section 22 of the Tamil University Act the Syndicate of the University has got ample powers to administer the properties of the University. As regards the non-participation of the Vice Chancellor in the meeting held on 03.09.2011 is concerned, it is stated that at the relevant point of time only a sub-Committee constituted by the Government with the approval of the Chancellor of the University viz., the Governor of Tamil Nadu was administering the affairs of the University, as the tenure of the Vice-Chancellor expired prior to the said meeting viz., 21.03.2011. Therefore, the sub-Committee alone has been discharging the duties of the Vice-Chancellor till the present Vice-Chancellor assumed office on 10.02.2012. The three Deans, who participated the meeting on 03.09.2011 representing the Syndicate were also properly appointed by the then Vice-Chancellor after considering their seniority. Therefore, the allegation that the Vice-Chancellor of the University never participated in the proceedings is absolutely baseless. Then, the allegation that the Secretary of the Tamil Development and Information Department cannot participate in the meeting is also baseless, because of the fact that as per Chapter IV Clause I (2.A.A) he is the Convenor of the sub-Committee, and therefore, he has every right to participate in the proceedings. Then, the allegation that the Secretary of the Tamil Development and Information Department cannot participate in the meeting is also baseless, because of the fact that as per Chapter IV Clause I (2.A.A) he is the Convenor of the sub-Committee, and therefore, he has every right to participate in the proceedings. (ii) It is stated that the existing Collectorate Building was constructed in the year 18961900 during the British period and has 115 years of long history. The old building could not accommodate all the new sections formed for the implementation of new schemes introduced by the Tamil Nadu Government, and the District Administration is facing difficulties in the smooth functioning of the administration. There is no adequate space to keep the old records in safe custody. It does not have adequate space even to provide Waiting Hall for the public who come on every Monday to present their grievance petitions to the District Officials. Moreover, the present building is situated within the main town and creates heavy traffic congestion due to the visits of large number of public. That apart, most of the Government Offices are functioning in the private rented premises at various distant places in the town, which cause hardship for the public to reach every office. Hence, in order to resolve all the above problems the Government had decided to construct a master plan complex in Thanjavur District and to keep all the Government offices to function under one roof, in the interest of the public. Hence, the Government has identified the present location. After detailed discussions at various levels and field inspections, it was decided to transfer 61.42 acres of lands (including poramboke) vested with the Tamil University, Thanjavur, which are not under use now. Hence, the impugned Government Order was passed. (iii) It is stated that the lands in question were acquired for the Tamil University only out of the funds provided by the Government and not out of the funds from Tamil University. That apart, 219.99 acres of Government poramboke lands were also transferred to the Tamil University without any cost. Therefore, the Government has every right to resume the lands, which are unused for the purpose for which it was placed at the disposal of Tamil University for nearly thirty years. Accordingly, the Government had decided to resume the lands for the public purpose. Therefore, the Government has every right to resume the lands, which are unused for the purpose for which it was placed at the disposal of Tamil University for nearly thirty years. Accordingly, the Government had decided to resume the lands for the public purpose. The action of the Government is in no way affecting the activities of the University and done with the bona fide intention to serve the public which are well within its limits and legal means. (iv) It is stated that the Tamil University Act was enacted for a specific purpose with an objective of establishing a University of unitary type for furthering the advancement of learning and prosecution of research in Tamil and shall function as a body corporate. The said Act does not deal with land matters and the Revenue Standing Orders hold good regarding the land transfer. The provision of Revenue Standing Order No.24(6) clearly deals with the powers of the Government to resume the lands wholly or in part, because the lands were granted by the Government with certain conditions only. Revenue Standing Order 24(6)(ii)(2) clearly says that the Government has powers to resume the lands which were acquired at the cost of the grantee and it can even resume the lands placed at the disposal of any institution or association which is acquired even at their cost. In the present case, the lands were acquired out of the funds provided by the Government and not out of the funds from the Tamil University. That apart, 219.99 acres of Government Poramboke lands were also transferred to Tamil University without any costs. Therefore, the Government has every right to resume the lands as per Revenue Standing Order 24(6)(ii)(2). (v) To counter the contention that the lands were got vested with the Tamil University by way of legislative enactment namely., the Tamil University Act, and hence, it cannot be taken back by means of mere Government Order, it is stated that as per Section 10 of the Tamil University Act, the Governor of Tamil Nadu shall be the Chancellor of the University, and by virtue of his Office, he is the head of the University. Like wise, as per Article 154(1) of the Indian Constitution, the Governor shall be the Executive Head of the State. As per rules of practice all the Government Orders have been passed as per the orders of the Governor. Like wise, as per Article 154(1) of the Indian Constitution, the Governor shall be the Executive Head of the State. As per rules of practice all the Government Orders have been passed as per the orders of the Governor. The Governor being the Chancellor of the University, he himself had accorded order, for the transfer of lands from the University. Therefore, the action of the Government is perfectly right and the impugned Government Order is very much in accordance with law. (vi) As regards the contention that no public notice was given inviting objections, it is stated that “A-1” notice has been published by the Vallam Revenue Inspector on 10.10.2011 for calling upon objections from the local public for the proposed land transfer and the same was published through the Village Administrative Officer of the village concerned. Further, Public Statement has also been recorded by the then Tahsildar, Thanjavur on 27.10.2011. There was not even a single objection received till the land transfer has been ordered by the Government. Therefore, it is evident that the public is much interested in the construction of new Collector’s Office Complex. The petitioner’s contention that no public purpose is going to be served by the said construction has no leg to stand. Moreover, it is stated that the objectives of the Tamil University is confined to Section 4 of the Tamil University Act, whereas the Collectorate is functioning for the public at large, and it is the only place and platform where the common man visits frequently to redress his grievances. (vii) As regards the contention that the land owned by the Tamil University was illegally transferred to Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of residential apartments and the Housing Board in turn sold them to the private persons, it is stated that the 8th World Tamil Conference was held during the year 1994-95 at Thanjavur and thousands of Tamil Scholars all around the world had come down to Thanjavur and participated in the said Conference. To accommodate them residential apartments were constructed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and after the said Conference was over, the apartments constructed were sold to government servants and general public. Therefore, there is no illegal transaction involved in the said issue. To accommodate them residential apartments were constructed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and after the said Conference was over, the apartments constructed were sold to government servants and general public. Therefore, there is no illegal transaction involved in the said issue. (viii) It is stated that out of the 1060.65 acres of land in the possession of the Tamil University only 61.42 acres of unused and vacant land has been selected and ordered for transfer for the construction of the New Collectorate. The selection of the site in question was done taking into consideration of all factors such as access to the public, soil condition, further expansion of the Thanjavur town, etc. Under these circumstances, the contentions of the writ petitioner are liable to be rejected as devoid of merits. (ix) It is stated that the Syndicate of the University itself in its meeting held on 03.09.2011 decided to give 50 acres of land after receiving compensation from the Government, and that in future, any request for acquiring the land would be considered only when it has nexus with the objects of the Tamil University. In the said meeting the Syndicate also discussed that the University require funds for its development purposes. Thereafter on 24.10.2011 a meeting took place among the District Collector, Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissioner of Land Administration, Tamil Development Secretary, Registrar of Tamil University and the Public Works Department officials, wherein it was decided that an extent of 7.50 acres with buildings near the proposed Collectorate Complex, which is already in the possession and enjoyment of the University will not be disturbed. The second decision was that 61.79 acres of University land would be utilised for the construction of the new Collectorate. This was placed in the Syndicate meeting held on 29.10.2011, and it was decided to transfer 61.42 acres of land. It was also resolved by the Syndicate to claim compensation for 50 acres of land and out of such compensation to create a corpus fund in favour of the University. The present Vice-Chancellor assumed office on 10.02.2012, and thereafter, on 23.03.2012 the meeting of the Syndicate was convened, wherein the resolution of the Conveners Committee were ratified, and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.85, Revenue Department dated 09.03.2012 (impugned G.O.) was acknowledged and accepted. Finally, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition as mis-conceived and devoid of merits. 4. The present Vice-Chancellor assumed office on 10.02.2012, and thereafter, on 23.03.2012 the meeting of the Syndicate was convened, wherein the resolution of the Conveners Committee were ratified, and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.85, Revenue Department dated 09.03.2012 (impugned G.O.) was acknowledged and accepted. Finally, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition as mis-conceived and devoid of merits. 4. The 2nd respondent - Registrar, Tamil University in his counter inter alia stated that the word to administer occurring in Section 22 of the Tamil University Act clothe the University with ample powers to deal with its properties for the welfare of the University. It is stated that after the expiry of the tenure of the then Vice Chancellor on 21.03.2011, the Syndicate of the University appointed a sub-Committee consisting of three persons to discharge the duties and responsibilities of the Vice-Chancellor vide its proceedings dated 18.04.2011. The Chancellor of the University viz., the Governor of Tamil Nadu vide letter No.1275/U1/2011 dated 29.04.2011 informed the University that the sub-Committee constituted by the Syndicate has been approved. Therefore, from 21.03.2011 the sub-Committee alone has been discharging the duties and responsibilities of the Chancellor till the present Vice-Chancellor assumed office on 10.02.2012. The three Deans representing the Syndicate had been properly appointed by the Vice-Chancellor after considering their seniority. Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor of the University never participated in the proceedings is baseless. Likewise, the allegation that the Secretary, Tamil Development and Information Department cannot participate in the meetings is also baseless, in view of the fact that he is the Convener of the sub-Committee and as per Chapter IV Clause I (2.A.A.), he is also an Ex-Officio Member of the Syndicate. The allegation that the Syndicate has no power to alienate the properties of the University is also incorrect. It is stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu allotted 1000 acres of land for the establishment of the Tamil University. An extent of 88.14 acres of land was sought to be taken away for the construction of District Collector’s Office Complex. The Syndicate itself in its meeting held on 03.09.2011 decided to give 50 acres of land after receiving compensation from the Tamil Nadu Government, and that in future any request for acquiring the land would be considered only when it has nexus with the objects of the Tamil University. The Syndicate itself in its meeting held on 03.09.2011 decided to give 50 acres of land after receiving compensation from the Tamil Nadu Government, and that in future any request for acquiring the land would be considered only when it has nexus with the objects of the Tamil University. It was also resolved that the Government should also pay compensation for the trees which are sought to be cut for the construction of the Collectorate. The Syndicate also had in its mind that it need funds for the development of the University. Thereafter, a meeting took place among the District Collector, Commissioner of Land Administration and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Tamil Development Secretary, Registrar of the University and PWD Officials on 24.10.2011, wherein it was decided that an extent of 7.50 acres with buildings near the proposed Collectorate Complex which is already in the possession and enjoyment of the University will not be disturbed. Secondly, it was decided that 61.79 acres of University land would be utilised for the construction of the new Collectorate. These decisions were placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 29.10.2011, and wherein it was decided to transfer 61.79 acres and the remaining poramboke land in possession of the University has to be assigned by the Government. It was also resolved to claim compensation for 50 acres of land and out of which a corpus fund has to be created in favour of the University. In the minutes of the meeting it was recorded that an extent of 62 acres would be adequate for the Master Plan Complex and the University has decided to give 50 acres of patta land and 12 acres of Government Poramboke land. The Conveners Committee also on 29.11.2011 recorded that 61.42 acres of land (patta land 50 acres and poramboke land 11.42 acres in possession of the University) is to be given, that the assignment for the remaining poromboke land is to be obtained from the Government and that from the compensation for the 50 acres of land a corpus fund has to be created. The present Vice-Chancellor assumed office on 10.02.2012. In the Syndicate meeting held on 23.03.2012 the resolutions of the Conveners Committee was ratified, and the impugned G.O. was acknowledged and accepted. It is stated that the 50 acres of land which were decided to be given is situated in the Western corner of the Campus. The present Vice-Chancellor assumed office on 10.02.2012. In the Syndicate meeting held on 23.03.2012 the resolutions of the Conveners Committee was ratified, and the impugned G.O. was acknowledged and accepted. It is stated that the 50 acres of land which were decided to be given is situated in the Western corner of the Campus. When the same is given for a public purpose, the University can also be benefitted by the compensation, which it is going to receive. Out of such compensation, since the University is going to create a corpus fund, it can be utlised for the development of the University. Therefore, the writ petition bereft of merits is sought to be dismissed. 5. Before we come to the merits of the writ petition, which has been filed in the name of Public Interest Litigation, we would like to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal reported in AIR 2010 SC 2550 , wherein their Lordships have elaborately discussed the evolution of the public interest litigation in India and also laid down the principles as to the nature of cases where such writ petitions can be entertained as PIL. 6. The public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the signature tune of our Constitution. The Government and its officers must welcome public interest litigation because it would provide them an occasion to examine whether the poor and the downtrodden are getting their social and economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community and whether social and economic justice has become a meaningful reality for them or it has remained merely a teasing illusion and a promise of unreality, so that in case the complaint in the public interest litigation is found to be true, they can in discharge of their constitutional obligation root out exploitation and injustice and ensure to the weaker sections their rights and entitlements. 7. The Supreme Court in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi Vs. 7. The Supreme Court in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SC 549 observed that the public interest litigation is for making basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social, economic and political justice. 8. It will also be a useful reference to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1982 SC 1473 wherein the Supreme Court observed: “ .that public interest litigation which is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an adversary character where there is a dispute between two litigating parties, one making claim or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing such claim or resisting such relief. Public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredressed. That would be destructive of the rule of law which forms one of the essential elements of public interest in any democratic form of Government. The rule of law does not mean that the protection of the law must be available only to a fortunate few or that the law should be allowed to be prostituted by the vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo under the guise of enforcement of their civil and political rights. The poor too have civil and political rights and the rule of law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not in reality. The poor too have civil and political rights and the rule of law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not in reality. If the sugar barons and the alcohol kings have the fundamental right to carry on their business and to fatten their purses by exploiting the consuming public, have the chamars belonging to the lowest strata of society no fundamental right to earn an honest living through their sweat and toil? The former can approach the courts with a formidable army of distinguished lawyers paid in four or five figures per day and if their right to exploit is upheld against the Government under the label of fundamental right, the courts are praised for their boldness and courage and their independence and fearlessness are applauded and acclaimed. But, if the fundamental right of the poor and helpless victims of injustice is sought to be enforced by public interest litigation, the so-called champions of human rights frown upon it as waste of time of the highest court in the land, which, according to them, should not engage itself in such small and trifling matters. Moreover, these self-styled human rights activists forget that civil and political rights, priceless and invaluable as they are for freedom and democracy, simply do not exist for the vast masses of our people. Large numbers of men, women and children who constitute the bulk of our population are today living a sub-human existence in conditions of abject poverty; utter grinding poverty has broken their back and sapped their moral fibre. They have no faith in the existing social and economic system. What civil and political rights are these poor and deprived sections of humanity going to enforce?” 9. In the light of the scope and object of the Public Interest Litigation as settled by the Supreme Court, prima facie we are of the view that the issue raised in the writ petition cannot be entertained as PIL. Indisputably, the land in question was acquired by the Government from the original land owners for the establishment of Tamil University and compensation was paid by the Government. Apart from that 219.99 acres of government poramboke land was also transferred to the Tamil University without any consideration. Indisputably, the land in question was acquired by the Government from the original land owners for the establishment of Tamil University and compensation was paid by the Government. Apart from that 219.99 acres of government poramboke land was also transferred to the Tamil University without any consideration. Out of the 1000 acres of land so acquired and transferred by the Government to the Tamil University a portion of the land measuring 61.42 acres is required by the Government for a public purpose viz., construction of a District Collectorate. From the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent it appears that the existing Collectorate was constructed in the year 1896-1900 during the British period, and it could not accommodate all the new sections formed for the implementation of the new schemes introduced by the Tamil Nadu Government and the district administration is facing difficulty in its smooth functioning. It is stated by the 1st respondent that there is no adequate space to keep the old records in safe custody. It is also stated that most of the government offices are functioning in private rented buildings at various distant places, which cause hardship for the public to reach every office. Hence, in order to resolve all the above problems the government decided to construct a Master Plan Complex in Thanjavur and to keep all the government offices to function under one roof in the interest of the public at large. In the aforesaid premises, a portion of the unused land owned by the Tamil University measuring 61.42 acres was decided to be resumed and transferred to the Government. Accordingly, the impugned Government Order was passed. 10. The 2nd respondent University by filing a separate counter stated that the Chancellor of the University namely., the Governor of Tamil Nadu has approved the transfer of the land. The 2nd respondent University has categorically stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu allotted 1000 acres of land for the establishment of the Tamil University. Out of the said extent of land only a small portion of around 62 acres of unused land was sought to be taken away for the construction of the District Collector's Office. The Syndicate of the University has also resolved to transfer the land and seek compensation for the land and the tress which are sought to be cut for the construction of the District Collectorate. The Syndicate of the University has also resolved to transfer the land and seek compensation for the land and the tress which are sought to be cut for the construction of the District Collectorate. The University took the stand to give land situated on the western corner of its campus and in lieu thereof it will receive compensation, which shall be utilised for the development of the University. 11. After giving our anxious consideration in the matter and in the background of the facts brought on record, we are of the definite opinion that the transfer of a portion of the land by the University to the Government of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of construction of District Collectorate shall be for public purpose. The said transaction will not in any way going to affect the poor and downtrodden people or it has any nexus with those persons, rather it is for the use of the public at large. Hence, no public interest is involved in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.