ORDER : R. Sudhakar, J. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash G.O.Ms.No.154, Revenue LD1(2) Department, dated 29.05.2013, issued by the 1st respondent and also for a consequential direction, directing the respondents to restore the public road from Thirupparankundram to Avaniapuram village in its original position, by removing the gate at the entrance and at the end of the public road, on either side, put-up by respondents 8 and 9 or any other illegal construction. 2. G.O.Ms.No.154, Revenue LD1(2) Department, dated 29.05.2013, is a Government Order allowing exchange of lands at the behest of the 9th respondent college, which is a Government aided College, run by the 8th respondent Trust. 3. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: (a) The 9th respondent college was founded in the year 1956, presently having students strength of about 4,000 - both boys and girls. When the college was initially started, it is stated that a large extent of land was acquired by the Government for the benefit of the 8th respondent Trust to establish an institution. Several blocks of buildings have been put-up, spread over several acres of lands comprised in different survey numbers. To simplify the location of various buildings and lay-out of the college, we refer to the site plan submitted by the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, at page No.66 of the typed-set of papers filed by the official respondents. This layout plan sets out in detail the various buildings constructed in the 9th respondent college in different survey numbers. They are identified in circles. (b) According to respondents 8 and 9, a cart track was running in the middle of the college property, connecting Thirupparankundram and Avaniyapuram villages, through survey Nos. 666/3, 669, 671 and 667, which are classified as vaikkal (channel), kalam (thrashing field), cart track poramboke, as per revenue records. The cart track, running through the institution, was partly in the Government land and mostly in the patta land belonging to the College. It is not in dispute that general public were using the said cart track for quite some time. Few vehicles were also plying through the said cart track, though it is not a bus-route. The cart track divided the college premises into two halves. It is not in dispute that general public were using the said cart track for quite some time. Few vehicles were also plying through the said cart track, though it is not a bus-route. The cart track divided the college premises into two halves. Students, both men and women, while using the college facilities, had to move from one part of the college campus to the other part and while doing so suffered inconvenience due to the use of this road by lorries, used by the Madurai Corporation for transporting garbage to the dumping yard. Besides, tourist bus operators have started using the said road to park the vehicles, as it was nearer to a pilgrimage site. All these caused lot of disturbance to the institution and inconvenience to the students in particular. (c) In order to avoid any sort of hardship and inconvenience to the students community by the user of vehicles, the College authorities made a request to the District Collector, Madurai, to shift the said road to the periphery of the college and in that view of the matter offered to donate patta lands to the Government for laying the alternate road for public use. It is pointed out that the survey numbers, which are relatable to the present transaction of exchange, come under the jurisdiction of Avaniyapuram Municipality. (d) On 16.12.2010, A-1 Notice, as prescribed under Board Standing Orders, came to be published in Avaniapuram Village seeking opinion of the general public on this issue of exchange of lands between the Government and respondents 8 and 9. According to respondents 8 and 9, public did appear and there appears to be no objection. Thereafter, Avaniyapuram Municipal Council passed a Resolution, agreeing for exchange of lands and assigning them in favour of the College and for formation of a new road, in the land proposed to be donated by the College. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai, inspected the above land on 8.2.2011, more particularly, the lands in survey numbers proposed to be given in exchange by the College to the Government, and submitted a Report to the District Collector, Madurai, the 5th respondent. The District Collector, in turn, forwarded a proceeding, recommending the above proposal, to the 2nd respondent, Principal Secretary to Government and Commissioner of Land Administration, on 07.11.2012. The District Collector, in turn, forwarded a proceeding, recommending the above proposal, to the 2nd respondent, Principal Secretary to Government and Commissioner of Land Administration, on 07.11.2012. The 2nd respondent, in turn, forwarded the recommendation, along with conditions to be incorporated, to the first respondent, namely, the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. The first respondent, thereafter, on considering all relevant factors, issued the impugned Government Order accepting the proposal which provides for exchange of lands between respondents 8 and 9 and the Government. The said Government Order is under challenge in this writ petition, which, in its whole, is extracted as under: "Abstract Land - Exchange of land - Madurai District - Madurai South Taluk - Avaniyapuram village - S.No.666/3, 667, 669 & 671 - Vaikkal, Kalam and Cart Tract proamboke - 0.57.0 hectares of Government proamboke land - Land exchanged with Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering college, Madras - Orders issued. Revenue [LD1(2)] Department G.O.(Ms.)No.154 Dated: 29.05.2013 Vijaya Varudam, Vaikasi-15, Thiruvalluvar Andu 2044, Read: 1. From the District Collector, Madurai letter No. 17081/2002/11, dated 10.02.2011. 2. From the Principal Secretary & commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai-5 letter No.F2/4687/2011, dated 21.02.11. 3. From the Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai-5 letter No.F2/16099/2012 dated 07.11.2012. Revenue [LD1(2)] Department G.O.(Ms.)No.154 Dated: 29.05.2013 Vijaya Varudam, Vaikasi-15, Thiruvalluvar Andu 2044, Read: 1. From the District Collector, Madurai letter No. 17081/2002/11, dated 10.02.2011. 2. From the Principal Secretary & commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai-5 letter No.F2/4687/2011, dated 21.02.11. 3. From the Principal Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai-5 letter No.F2/16099/2012 dated 07.11.2012. ORDER: In the reference 1st read above the District Collector, Madurai has sent a proposal to Government through the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration for exchange of patta lands belong to Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College in S.Nos.589, 590, 597, 661/4A and 666/5 measuring to an extent of 1.08.0 hectares in Avaniyapuram village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District, in lieu of Government land in S.Nos.666/3 classified as Vaikkal, S.No.667 classified as Kalam poramboke, S.No.669 classified as Kalam and S.No.671 classified as Cart Track and Kalam, totally to an extent of 0.57.0 hectares in Avaniyapuram village, Madurai South Taluk and Madurai District for formation of road to their College and reported as follows:- (i) The Correspondent, Thiyagarajar Engineering college, has applied for exchange of their patta land in S.Nos.589, 590, 597, 661/4A and 666/5 measuring to an extent of 1.08.0 hectares in Avaniyapuram village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District, in lieu of Government land in S.Nos.666/3 classified as Vaikkal, S.No.667 classified as Kalam poramboke, S.No.669 classified as Kalam and S.No. 671 classified as Cart Track and Kalam, totally to an extent of 0.57.0 hectares in Avaniyapuram village, Madurai South Taluk and Madurai District for formation of road to their College. (ii) The land proposed to be exchanged was inspected by the District Revenue Officer on 08.02.2011. (iii) The details of Government lands proposed to be exchanged are as follows: Taluk: Madurai South Village: Avaniyapuram Sl.No. S.No. Extent of Government land proposed to be exchanged (in hectares) Classification Total extent of land existing 1. 666/3 0.10.0 Vaikkal 0.25.0 2. 669 0.41.0 Kalam 1.17.5 3. 671 0.01.5 Cart Track and Kalam 0.37.0 4. 667 0.04.5 Cart Track 1.24.5 Total 0.57.0 (iv) The details of patta lands belong to Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College proposed to be exchanged are as follows: Taluk: Madurai South Village : Avaniyapuram Sl. No. S.No. Extent of Patta land proposed to be exchanged (in hectares) Classification Total extent of land existing 1. 589, 590, 597, 666/1, 666/4A & 666/5 0.55.5 Wet land 1.82.5 2. No. S.No. Extent of Patta land proposed to be exchanged (in hectares) Classification Total extent of land existing 1. 589, 590, 597, 666/1, 666/4A & 666/5 0.55.5 Wet land 1.82.5 2. 666/6, 670, 668, 672, 674/2B, 675/1, 675/2, 675/6, 676/7, 676/8, 664/2, 666/2 & 666/4B 0.52.5 Dry land 7.54.5 Total 1.08.0 (v) For the exchange of these lands, A1 Notice was published in Avaniyapuram Village on 16.12.2010 and no objection was received from the Public and a statement was also recorded from the public. (vi) The District Collector, Madurai has recommended this proposal with a condition that the applicant should not encroach the vaikkal or disturb the follow of water in the Vaikkal. 2. In the reference 2nd read above, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration has recommended the proposal of the District Collector, Madurai and suggested to incorporate the following conditions:- (i) The water holding/water flow of the Vaikkal poramboke should not be disturbed. (ii) The applicant must not encroach on Vaikkal poramboke. (iii) Preferably the applicant must put a Culvert/Bridge on the Vaikkal part of the land on the road formation plan, so that Vaikkal preserved. 3. In the reference 3rd read above, the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration has further reported as follows: (i) The value of the Government land proposed to be exchange as per the revised Guide Line Value exists from 1.4.2012 for the lands in S.No.666/3A and etc. is Rs.27,77,520/- (ii) The value of the Patta (Wet) land belongs to Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College to an extent of 0.55.5 hectares proposed to be exchanged in lieu of Government land as per the revised Guide Line Value exists from 1.4.2012 for the lands in S.No.589/2 and etc. is Rs.47,04,880/- (iii) The value of the Patta (Dry) land belongs to Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College to an extent of 0.52.5 hectares proposed to be exchange in lieu of Government land as per the revised Guide Line Value exists from 1.4.2012 for the lands in S.No.664/2B and etc. is Rs.1,08,89,960/-. Total value of patta land (1.08.0 hectares of land) Rs.1,55,94,840.00 Total value of Government lands (0.57.0 hectares of land) Rs. is Rs.1,08,89,960/-. Total value of patta land (1.08.0 hectares of land) Rs.1,55,94,840.00 Total value of Government lands (0.57.0 hectares of land) Rs. 27,77,520.00 Difference of value Rs.1,28,17,320.00 (iv) Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineer College exchanges their patta land with more value of Rs.1,28,17,320/- than that of the Government land as per the revised Guide Line Value exists after 1.4.2012 and also the Chairman and Correspondent of the College has given the affirmation through an affidavit that they would not demand any cash or land to equalise with their patta land from the Government at any situation. (v) There is a passageway to go to the patta lands. 4. The Government after careful examination have accepted the proposal of the District Collector, Madurai and the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration and order for exchange of lands belong to Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College in S.No.s.589, 590, 597, 661/4A and 666/5 measuring to an extent of 1.08.0 hectares in Avaniyapuram village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District, in lieu of Government land in S.Nos. 666/3 classified as 'Vaikkal', S.No.667 classified as 'Kalam' poramboke, S.No.669 classified as 'Kalam' and S.No.671 classified as 'Cart Track' and 'Kalam', totally to an extent of 0.57.0 hectares in Avaniyapuram village, Madurai South Taluk and Madurai District for formation of road to their College, subject to the following conditions and also as per the orders exist in R.S.O.26(A). (i) A culvert should be constructed as per the sketch furnished by Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College without affecting the Channel. (ii) There should be no interruption to the flow of water in the Channel and if any damages occur that should be rectified from the own funds of Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College. (iii) There should be no change in the grounds level of Channel. (iv) The culvert proposed to be constructed by Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College across the Channel should be handed over to Government for possession. (v) Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College should bear the responsibility for the quality and strength of the culvert. (vi) Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College should not claim any right to the culvert and on the place of the culvert at anytime. (vii) Intimation should be given to the Chief Engineer, Madurai Region, before the commencement of the construction of the culvert and that should be constructed under his supervision. (viii) Government/Water Resources Department will not bear the responsibility, if any accidents/damages occur to the individuals/vehicles while crossing the culvert. (vii) Intimation should be given to the Chief Engineer, Madurai Region, before the commencement of the construction of the culvert and that should be constructed under his supervision. (viii) Government/Water Resources Department will not bear the responsibility, if any accidents/damages occur to the individuals/vehicles while crossing the culvert. (ix) Tvl.Thiyagarajar Engineering College should ace all the legal problems, if arises in future, due to the construction of the culvert. (x) The public should be allowed to use the culvert. 5. The Principal Secretary and the Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Collector, Madurai are requested to take necessary action as stated in para 4 above. (By Order of the Governor) Rajeev Ranjan, Principal Secretary to Government." (e) Before issuance of the impugned Government Order, the very same petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.17725 of 2013, for the following relief: ".... to issue a writ order or direction particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents 1 to 5 to made use of the public road (Thirupparankundram to Avaniapuram) for the public, by removing the board and the check post put up by the 6th and 7th respondents and within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court ...." Consequent to the issuance of the present impugned Government Order, the above said writ petition was disposed of as infructuous. The present writ petition challenges the Government order. (f) Pursuant to the issuance of the impugned Government order, respondents 8 and 9 constructed 30 feet pucca bitumen road in the land donated by the Government and also constructed culverts in various places, in terms of the specifications given by the 7th respondent, namely the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Periyar Vaigai Division, Madurai-600 002, and also submitted a letter, dated 10.10.2013, along with an affidavit in terms of the impugned Government Order to the 5th respondent, informing completion of road and culverts as stipulated in the Government Order. Contents of the letter, dated 10.10.2013, are as follows: "Kindly refer to your proceedings cited above. Pursuant to the same the construction of Road and bridges have been completed as per the conditions stipulated in the above referred G.O. and ready for use of the Public. We hereby confirm that we are handing over the same to you. Contents of the letter, dated 10.10.2013, are as follows: "Kindly refer to your proceedings cited above. Pursuant to the same the construction of Road and bridges have been completed as per the conditions stipulated in the above referred G.O. and ready for use of the Public. We hereby confirm that we are handing over the same to you. As per your directions, the necessary Affidavit have been executed by us and the name change have been effected in the patta concerned for the lands exchanged and covered in the said proceedings. This is for your kind information please." 4. The writ petitioner aggrieved by the Government order has filed the filed the writ petition raising legal and factual issues. He claims that he is one of the Poojaris and Managing Trustee of Sri Veiluganthamman Kovil, situated at No.31, G.S.T. Road, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District. The petitioner states that an extent of 66 acres of land in Avaniapuram and Thirupprankundram Villages were acquired by the Government, for the benefit of the 8th respondent Trust for establishment of the 9th respondent College. The details of various survey numbers and the extent of land, which is in possession of the 8th respondent college Trust, are also mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner further states that 2.57 acres of land in Survey No.660 of Inam land, given to the Poojaris of Arulmigu Veiluganthamman Temple, were also acquired and the amount of compensation deposited by the Government has not yet been withdrawn by the poojaris of the temple. According to the petitioner, insofar as the cart track, vaikkal (Channel) and Kalam (thrashing field), which run through the middle of the property of the 8th and the 9th respondent college, the college cannot claim exclusive right to use the pathway. 5. Consequent to the impugned Government Order, the 8th respondent started to lay a new road. It is stated that one of the poojaris and trustee of the temple, objected to the same and made a representation to the 5th respondent, the District Collector, Madurai District, in June 2013. The apprehension was that if a new road is allowed to be laid, it will obstruct the free flow of water through the vaikkal and an extent of 2000 acres of agricultural lands would get affected. 6. The apprehension was that if a new road is allowed to be laid, it will obstruct the free flow of water through the vaikkal and an extent of 2000 acres of agricultural lands would get affected. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner goes on to state that another temple called "Thenkala Vinayagar Koil", is in Survey No.669 and it is in the administration of the trustees of Arulmighu Veiluganthamman Temple. The 8th respondent, by formation of new road and closing the old one, has infringed the right of access to the public. It is also affecting the rights of the poojaris of Tenkala Vinayagar Temple, referred to above and the inam lands of 1.45 acres in Survey No.570/5. For better clarity, we extract paragraph 14 of the writ affidavit, which reads as under: "14. In so far as Su.No.669 is concerned, there is a Thenkala Vinayagar temple in the said land, and the remaining land is a Kallu Kalam. The poojaries of the petitioner temple are doing pooja in the said temple and for the same, they are given an extent of 1.45 acres as Sy.No. 570/5 as Inam land." 7. Primarily, it is contended that without notice to the petitioner, who is one of the poojaries and Managing Trustee of the temple and representative of the general public, the lands in question have been conveyed by the first respondent, at the behest of other official respondents, to respondents 8 and 9. The contention in the writ petition is that by the nature of land exchange in the impugned Government order to the 8th and 9th respondent College it will result in the closure of old road and the proposal for providing alternate road will not be in public interest. Besides, it suffers from various infirmities. To highlight the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously and vehemently contended that in Survey No.666/3, which is classified as vaikkal, out of the total extent of 0.25.0 hectares, an extent of 0.10.0 hectares alone has been parted to respondents 8 and 9. Insofar as Survey No.669 is concerned, out of the total extent of 1.17.5 hectares, which is classified as 'kalam', an extent of 0.41.0 hectares alone has been given to the respondents 8 and 9. Insofar as Survey No.669 is concerned, out of the total extent of 1.17.5 hectares, which is classified as 'kalam', an extent of 0.41.0 hectares alone has been given to the respondents 8 and 9. Similarly, in Survey No.671, which is classified as 'cart track and kalam', out of the total extent of 0.37.0 hectares, an extent of 0.01.5 hectare alone has been parted to respondents 8 and 9. Likewise, in Survey No.667, which is classified as 'cart track', out of the total extent of 1.24.5 hectares, only a small portion of land, measuring 0.04.6 hectares, has been parted to the respondents 8 and 9. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, under the exchange, respondents 8 and 9 have been given totally 0.57.0 hectares of land. For the above said land given by the Government, respondents 8 and 9 have given 1.08.0 hectares of land, which is equivalent to 2.66 acres. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that respondents 8 and 9 are not only using the land given to the Government in exchange, but they have also encroached upon the lands which the Government had not transferred. 8. The second limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though respondents 8 and 9 have to hand over an extent of 1.08.0 hectares of land to the Government, there is no physical handing over of those lands to the Government. In effect, the allegation is that the exchange and transfer of land is a farce and it is a make believe theory to benefit respondents 8 and 9. 9. One other contention raised is that the value of the land proposed to be given by respondents 8 and 9 has been boosted without any basis and at the same time, the value of the Government land transferred to respondents 8 and 9 has been shown meagrely. In this regard, connivance of the revenue officials is alleged. To buttress this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon several village maps in the typed set of papers. To cut a long story short, she relied upon the typed-set of papers filed by the Special Government Pleader, which contain FMB sketches in respect of Survey Nos.589, 590, 597, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675 and 676. To cut a long story short, she relied upon the typed-set of papers filed by the Special Government Pleader, which contain FMB sketches in respect of Survey Nos.589, 590, 597, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675 and 676. As a test case, she referred to page No.4 of the typed-set filed by the official respondents, which is FMB Sketch relating to Survey No.666 to say that since the new road is laid beyond Survey No.666, respondents 8 and 9 have taken away the entire vaikkal (channel). Similarly, in Survey No. 669, sub-division 2, has not been transferred and what is transferred is 669/1 and 669/3 and there is no 'kalam'. Similarly, in Survey No.667, sub-division 2, 4 and 6 alone have been exchanged to respondents 8 and 9; whereas they are enjoying the entire extent. Therefore, under the guise of exchange of a small portion, the Government has allowed a larger extent of land to the benefit of respondents 8 and 9, which has resulted in destruction of water channel, cart track and thrashing field, which are intended for public use. 10. Similarly, in respect of lands exchanged by respondents 8 and 9 to Government, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though 1.08.0 hectares, equivalent to 2.66 acres of land, is shown to be transferred to the Government, the contention of the petitioner is that it continues to be in the occupation of respondents 8 and 9 and there was no actual transfer of the land to the Government. The learned counsel relied upon a document at page No.230 of the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner to show that Survey No.589, which is said to be exchanged by respondents 8 and 9, is actually Government land and road and they try to palm off the Government property, as their own property. Though there is no specific date in the said document, at the threshold it is pointed out by respondents 8 and 9 that this document is after sub-division on exchange of the property and respondents 8 and 9 repelled the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that it is a misconception of the document. We will examine this issue later on. 11. We will examine this issue later on. 11. But, for the purpose of this case, the petitioner points out that several survey numbers, which form 2.66 acres, continue to be in the occupation of respondents 8 and 9 and those lands have never been handed over to the Government. That seems to be the sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner. Besides the contention is that no notice was issued to the petitioner or the other poojaries or the public prior to the issuance of impugned Government Order. Hence, it is pleaded that there is violation of principles of natural justice. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and tried to understand the nature of the grievance of the petitioner and as to how this exchange of land would cause difficulty either to the petitioner or to the public. There are two issues here. The larger picture which we have to consider is whether the cart track passes through the middle of the property of respondents 8 and 9 was halving the same and whether the request of respondents 8 and 9 for exchange of the land for the benefit of the students and the institution is justified and in that endeavour, whether there is inconvenience caused to the public or to the petitioner and secondly whether there is any irregularity or impropriety in the procedure adopted to transfer the land, as alleged by the writ petitioner. 13. We have gone through the impugned Government Order, which is extracted as above, and the details of the recommendation of the District Collector, Madurai District, the 5th respondent herein, to the 2nd respondent, the Principal Secretary to the Government and the Commissioner of Land Administration, who considered the issue on the question of exchange, the nature of use and the purpose for which the exchange was sought for and the value of the property that is offered by respondents 8 and 9, in lieu of the land the Government would transfer. We find that in paragraph No.3 of the impugned Government Order, they have shown the difference of value of the land given by respondents 8 and 9, which exceeds the value of the Government land. The difference in value is Rs.1,28,17,320.00. Hence, the allegation on this score is baseless and imaginary. 14. We find that in paragraph No.3 of the impugned Government Order, they have shown the difference of value of the land given by respondents 8 and 9, which exceeds the value of the Government land. The difference in value is Rs.1,28,17,320.00. Hence, the allegation on this score is baseless and imaginary. 14. As far as the use of the land and safeguard to be taken, the Government Order proposes certain conditions, as contained in paragraph 4 of the order, as set out above. Exchange of land is also based on the recommendation of the District Collector and the subsequent recommendation of the Revenue Authorities. The manner in which flow of water should be regulated and as to how culverts should be laid so that water channel, namely, vaikkal, would be safeguarded has been considered and indicated. The counsel for the petitioner pleads that in certain portions, vaikkal has been obliterated and it is denied by respondents 8 and 9. The records of the Public Works Department show that directions contained in the Government order have been complied. It is therefore a disputed fact. We find that there is nothing to suggest that respondents 8 and 9 would have the right to close the channel or obstruct free flow of water. From the conditions made in paragraph 4 of the impugned Government Order, we find that there is specific intendment that there should be no change in the ground level and there should be no interruption for the flow of water. That culverts should be put-up to ensure that flow of water is not stopped. It is also mentioned as a condition that the authority, namely, the Chief Engineer, Madurai Region, should be intimated before the commencement of the construction of culvert and it should be constructed under his supervision and maintained properly by respondents 8 and 9, without any restriction. Use of culvert, that is to say, flow of water through the channel, also is secured by the impugned order. Strict condition has been imposed on respondents 8 and 9 to maintain it for the present and in the future. Therefore, on the plea that vaikkal has been obliterated, we find that there is no basis and the allegation is misplaced and erroneous. 15. Strict condition has been imposed on respondents 8 and 9 to maintain it for the present and in the future. Therefore, on the plea that vaikkal has been obliterated, we find that there is no basis and the allegation is misplaced and erroneous. 15. Insofar as the cart track is concerned, respondents 8 and 9 undertook to put-up the same at their own cost and lay bitumen road and they have also established the same and handed it over to the Government on 10.10.2013, supported by an affidavit which is in terms of the Government Order. The action as above by respondents 8 and 9 takes care to both the situations, namely, development of the road for the public use and maintenance of vaikkal for free flow of water. The authorities of the Revenue and the Public Works Department have also filed separate affidavits confirming the same. The Executive Engineer, WRO, PWD, Periyar Vaigai Basin Division, Madurai-625 002, in his affidavit has stated as follows: "07. I submit that accordingly the respondents 8 and 9 have constructed culverts at four places. In the East West Road, newly formed they have put up the first culvert at first kilo meter, then second one 180 meters thereafter, the third one 250 meters thereafter, fourth one 100 meters thereafter. Through these four culverts, the free flow of water through the channel has been assured. 08. I submit that thus the respondents have constructed culverts without affecting the channel. There is no interruption of free flow of water in the channel. There is no change in the ground water level of the channel. The culverts along with the newly formed road had been handed to the Government by the respondents 8 and 9. The construction of culvert was done under the supervision of public department. The respondents 8 and 9 have assured to these respondents that they will bear the responsibility of quality and strength" of the culvert and that they will not make claim any right to the culverts and that make good the losses of any caused due to any damages to the culverts and that they will face the legal problems if any arise in future. I submit that the public is being now allowed to use the road and the culverts. I further submit that the culverts were constructed under the supervision of these respondents. I submit that the public is being now allowed to use the road and the culverts. I further submit that the culverts were constructed under the supervision of these respondents. The District Collector, Madurai District, in his affidavit has stated as follows: "15.I submit it has also to be stated that after exchange of lands, as aforesaid, the respondents 8th and 9th have complied with the conditions stipulated therein and have formed a pucca Road and have built culverts and small bridges, wherever they were required. The public is now having a peaceful and easy access through the same. In fact now it has become a public Road, where the respondents 8th and 9th cannot claim any right. Except formation of the new Road, for public purpose, there is no alteration of physical features of any of the lands nearby. In fact almost all the lands nearby have now been converted to house site and large number of constructions have come up there and in fact the new road is much useful to public at large. ..... 19. I submit in so far as the vaikkal that runs through these lands are concerned, as per the revenue records, the same is only a detailed vaikkal, i.e. less than 4 meters, which will not be given any specific subdivision, as per survey Rules and which will simply been shown only as a line in the FMB. Therefore such vaikkal has no specific breadth or width or depth or length or even uniform. As per the revenue records, a vaikkal flows through these lands. Physical verification of the vaikkal explicate the width of vaikkal vary from 1 feet to 10 feet. Therefore at no stretch of imagination it can be said that respondents 8 & 9 have encroached the vaikkal, more particularly where the water course is not affected or blocked. These respondents shall monitor that the water course through the said vaikkal is not blocked or affected by the respondents 8 & 9 or anybody and the said vaikkal is kept intact as such. In case of any deviation, these respondents shall also take appropriate action against the concerned persons." We, therefore, find no irregularity in the manner in which the Government approached the matter and passed the impugned Government order for exchange of lands in the interest of public and the aided institution. In case of any deviation, these respondents shall also take appropriate action against the concerned persons." We, therefore, find no irregularity in the manner in which the Government approached the matter and passed the impugned Government order for exchange of lands in the interest of public and the aided institution. It was in the best interest of both the public as well as the institution and the students of the institution. A win-win situation. 16. Coming to the issue that the college has put-up construction on the vaikkal and obstructed the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Survey Nos.666, 667 and 669 and the maps. That allegation of the petitioner is denied by the learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 and it is further stated that whatever land has been given to the Government is absolute and respondents 8 and 9 will never claim any right over the same, other than the extent of land that has been taken from the Government for the use of the College. Insofar as the land that is put to use for access to the public, there will be absolutely no claim by the institution. All the lands, other than what has been exchanged and previously owned by respondents 8 and 9 are jagged and do not show regular straight line. The compound wall has been put up only in respect of land belonging to the College and it does not encroach on Government land as suggested. To amplify this, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 that temple, which is situated in the property adjacent to the property of respondents 8 and 9, stood excluded from the compound wall of the institution. That is cited as one of example to buttress the argument that there was no encroachment on the lands of the Government nor is there any claim over the land already parted to the Government, by way of exchange, in terms of the Government Order. 17. It is an issue on facts and the Government, in its wisdom, thought it fit to accept the proposal, after series of consultation and communication with the District Collector. The issue was considered at various levels and thereafter by the Principal Secretary to the Government and the Commissioner of Land Administration. It is only thereafter the Government Order was issued. It is an issue on facts and the Government, in its wisdom, thought it fit to accept the proposal, after series of consultation and communication with the District Collector. The issue was considered at various levels and thereafter by the Principal Secretary to the Government and the Commissioner of Land Administration. It is only thereafter the Government Order was issued. We are not inclined to go into each and every issue on fact and reconsider the issue on the factual dispute now raised by the petitioner. It does not fall within the realm of this Court to do the exercise of reconstructing/restructuring the various survey numbers to find whether there is any error in the transfer in one or other survey numbers. All that we wish to say is that the Government is at liberty to ensure that respondents 8 and 9 are actually in possession of the land that was transferred to them and nothing more. It is always open to the authorities to ensure that Government land is not misused or misutilized by any person, leave alone respondents 8 and 9. In this regard, the learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 points out that the District Collector has indicated the same in paragraph 19 of his counter affidavit, which we have extracted above. 18. We, therefore, have no hesitation to accept the Government's endeavour to transfer some lands in lieu of alternative lands offered by respondents 8 and 9. If there is any error as pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner in respect of any land or survey number, it is for the revenue authorities to look into it and examine the matter. We do not wish to go into a fact finding mission on this issue. 19. On the question of valuation, the Government is the best authority to decide. There is no material for us to come to a different conclusion in variance with the decision of the Government and as such we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this issue. On the other hand, the valuation as per record is in favour of the government. So also the extent. In this regard, we extract paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Madurai District, which reads as under: "7. On the other hand, the valuation as per record is in favour of the government. So also the extent. In this regard, we extract paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Madurai District, which reads as under: "7. I submit that for the determination of the land value for the proposed lands to be exchange, the 5th respondent has collected sales statistics from sub Registrar office that took place during the year 2006-2008. The GLR value is Rs.288/- per Sq.Ft.for both Government and patta land. The market value has been arrived at Rs.246/per sq.Ft. in the year 2008 and notional increase given at 12% per year and it comes to Rs.309/- per Sq.Ft. in 2011. Accordingly the value of 0.57.0 hectares of Government land works out Rs.1,89,96,084/- and the value of 1.08.8 hectares patta land works out to Rs.3,59,71,308/-. The excess value of patta land is Rs.1,69,75,224/-. The 5th respondent herein has reported that the 8th respondent herein has given consent that he will not claim any differential excess amount from the Government. I submit that the 5th respondent has recommended the exchange of land proposal and stated that a condition may be imposed that the applicant should not encroach the vaikkal or disturb the flow of water in the vaikkal." 20. The issue of fault in A1 Notice is also without basis. As per Board Standing Orders, it is stated that such notice was issued in Avaniyapuram Village by the Revenue Authorities on 16.12.2010. In his affidavit, the District Collector has stated that upon issuance of such notice, there was no objection from public and in fact statements were recorded from the public. Therefore, we find no error in the procedure adopted. The said plea also stands rejected. 21. Insofar as the transfer of land is concerned, the site plan submitted by the Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, at page No. 66 of the typed-set filed by the official respondents, puts the issue more succinctly and also explains one other factual issue raised by the petitioner in relation to Survey Nos.666-4A and 5-A transfer and that is evident from page 34 of the typed-set filed by the petitioner himself. It clearly shows that actual transfer is in relation to Survey No.666-4A, 666-5 and subdivided into 666-4A1, 666-4A2, 666-4A3, 666-4A4 and 666-5A and 666-5B and it also gives actual extent of land exchange. It clearly shows that actual transfer is in relation to Survey No.666-4A, 666-5 and subdivided into 666-4A1, 666-4A2, 666-4A3, 666-4A4 and 666-5A and 666-5B and it also gives actual extent of land exchange. Respondents 8 and 9 do not claim anything more than that. The plea of non use of land other than what has been transferred to respondents 8 and 9 applies to the above Survey Number also. As we have stated earlier, it is for the Government to ensure that the land other than what has been exchanged continues to be with the Government. 22. The petitioner, primarily, claims that he is one of the poojaris of the temple called "Thenkala Vinayagar Temple", referred to above. But, we find from one document that it is relatable to inam land, which land has been resumed. Right of the petitioner to be heard as a poojari is a moot question, as we find no document in support of the same, except the inam land given to erstwhile poojaris. There is no record to support the petitioner's claim as a poojari. In any event, he files a writ petition claiming to be the Managing Trustee of the temple called "Arulmighu Veiluganthamman Kovil" and not the "Thenkala Vinayagar temple". The poojaris of Thenkala Vinayagar Temple are not before us. Therefore, we do not find any justification or locus standi on the part of the petitioner to file the public interest litigation. 23. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Advocate Commissioner stands discharged. Petition dismissed.