Judgment :- Petitioner-Panchayat challenges the land acquisition proceedings initialed by the second respondent. Third respondent published Ext. P-1 notification in the Kerala Gazette dated 5-1-1993 to acquire an extent of 0.0110 hectares of land in Sy. No. 23/5 of Mavoor village. For the construction of a shopping centre the property was already acquired for the Panchayat and possession was taken on 25-4-1979. Due to paucity of funds construction could not be effected. Panchayat received Ext. P-3 notice from the Department of Local Administration to the effect that 2.72 cents of property vested in the Panchayat has to be taken back by the Government. Petitioner filed Ext. P4 objection. 2. Dominant contention of the petitioner is that the land which was already acquired and entrusted to it for a specific purpose cannot be acquired by the Government for another purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land was acquired for a specific purpose of the Panchayat and therefore it cannot be taken back by the Government on the pretext of widening the road. In other words, it is contended That once a property is acquired to the benefit of a party it cannot be subjected to further acquisition proceedings for a different purpose to benefit another. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the acquisition is intended for a public purpose viz. widening the road junction at Mavoor and as the Land Acquisition Act does not contain any provision barring such acquisition petitioner's contention is devoid of merit. 3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the land acquired for the Panchayat for its own purpose can be subjected to further acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act for a different purpose by the Government. The land belonging to the Panchayat is proposed to be acquired by the respondents for the purpose of widening the road junction at Mavoor. If the contention of the Panchayat that the land which was already acquired for a definite purpose cannot be subjected to acquisition proceedings for a different purpose is accepted it would virtually create a stalemate barring further development in the area. There is no provision in the Land acquisition Act that interdicts acquisition of a property on the ground that it was acquired for a different. Purpose on an earlier occasion. There is no provision in the Land acquisition Act that interdicts acquisition of a property on the ground that it was acquired for a different. Purpose on an earlier occasion. As the land acquisition proceedings have been initialed on the request of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads) Division, Kozhikode and as the petitioner has not established any malafidcs in the said action it cannot challenge Ext. P-1 notification. Contention that a property acquired for a particular purpose for the Panchayat cannot be acquired for another purpose by the respondents is not tenable. Merely because a property has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act the beneficiary cannot contend that the said property is immune from any future acquits lion under the Act. 4. The public purpose viz. widening the road junction at Mavoor is really beyond challenge as there is hardly any material to hold that there was any colorable exercise of power. In the absence of it this Court cannot go behind the declaration of the Government and probe whether the purpose for which the land is needed is for a public purpose at all. In Radial v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1970 SC 984) the Supreme Court held: "Whether there is a declaration under S.6 that the land proposed to be acquired is needed for a public purpose, the Court cannot go into the question whether the need was genuine or not unless it is satisfied that the action taken by the government was a fraudulent one. The conclusiveness' in S.6(3) must necessarily attach not merely to a need but also to the question whether the purpose was a public purpose". In Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (AIR 1971 SC 1033) the Supreme Court observed that the Court cannot go behind the declaration of the Government and find out in a particular case whether the purpose for which the land is needed is a public purpose or not. In view of the settled legal position petitioner's contention that the land proposed to be acquired is really not for a public purpose cannot be agitated before this Court. There is no merit in the Original Petition. The Original petition is dismissed.