The government has the authority to assign acquired land for another public purpose without adhering to the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and the Rules, and the legal heirs of the previous owners have no right to claim reassignment of the property if it is being used for a public purpose.

Sreedharan, J.

Writ petitioner in O.P.5437/1990 challenges the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Original Petition. That Original Petition was disposed of alongwith O.P.7560/1990 by a common judgment. Writ petitioner in O.P.7560/1990 has not come up in appeal.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows.-12.44 acres of land comprised in various survey fields were acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a hospital building. Pursuant thereto, the properties were taken possession of by the State in 1958 and an award was passed in 1960. Entire compensation payable to the land owners, together with solatium, was paid. According to the petitioners in the two Original Petitions, properties comprised in Survey Nos. 168/2 and 172/2, which were acquired by the State, belonged to their predecessors in interest, namely Govindan and Achuthan. Deceased Govindan is the father of the appellant herein. After the completion of the acquisition proceedings, it was found that the acquired land was not fit for construction of hospital building. Legal representatives of Govindan filed Ext.P3 representation staling that since the land is not required for construction of the hospital, it may be restored to them. Similar petition was also filed by the legal heirs of deceased Achuthan. Finding that no action was taken by the Government on those representations, they moved this Court by filing O. Ps. 345/1981 and 1844/1981. These petitions were disposed of by directing the Government to pass final order on their representations. On coming to know of them over to hand over the land to the Tellicherry Municipality for the construction of a Stadium Complex, appellant herein filed O.P.7995/1987. That Original Petition was disposed of by directing the Government to pass final order on the representation filed by the petitioner. Thereupon Government passed Ext.P7 order, .0.(Rt)1106/90/RD dated 28-4-1990. By this order, writ petitioner was informed that their request for reassignment of the land cannot be granted since it is required by the local body for purpose of construction of a Stadium. The legal heirs of previous owners challenged Ext.P7 order in the Original Petition which were jointly disposed of by the learned Single Judge.

3. The main prayers made by the appellant in O.P.5437/1990 are for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P7 order; for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconvey the property which belonged to Sri. Govindan; and to quash the decision taken by the Government to assign the property to the Tellicherry Municipality.

4. It is the admitted case of the parties that property, which belonged to deceased father of the appellant, Sri. Govindan, was acquired by the State as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the construction of a hospital building. Possession of the land of Govindan alongwith other adjoining properties was taken by the Government way back in 1958. Award under the Land Acquisition Act was passed in 1960. Entire compensation as per the award was given to the land owners. As a result of this, the land became vested in the State. It is also admitted that Government did not put up any hospital building in the acquired area. Hospital building was constructed in an entirely different locality. Property continues to be in the possession of the Government. While so, the Tellicherry Municipality requested the Government to make available the acquired property to them for constructing a Stadium Complex. Government decided to handover the land to the Municipality for the construction of the Stadium Complex. Consequently the request made by the legal heirs of the previous owners to get the land reassigned to them has been turned down by the Government.

5. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant is that Government cannot transfer the