JUDGMENT : (Per S.B. Sinha, C.J.) The Writ Petitioner is the appellant which is an association said to be representing the Motor Transport Operators in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The prayer in the Writ Petition was for issuance of a writ or direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to develop and implement the Truck Terminal Project at Moosapet, Rangareddy District wherefor lands have already been acquired by the Government. In other words, the appellant asked for issuance of a writ or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing implementation of an order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.74, M.A. dated 24-12-1993. 2. In exercise of the power conferred under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short "the Act'), the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) prepared a Master Plan in the year 1981 wherein Moosapet was earmarked for establishment of a Truck Terminal Project on the Hyderabad-Bombay National Highway. 3. Pursuant to the said proposal, land to the extent of Ac.33.00 was acquired. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued notifying the same in the Gazette on 18-12-1980 for the use of the same by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. The amount of compensation therefor was also paid to the land owners. G.O.Ms.No. 740 M.A. dated 24-12-1993 was issued by the State Government in terms whereof an Empowered Committee was constituted with a view to effectively plan and implement the said truck terminal project. The Huda, however, issued a notification in the newspapers stating that the acquired land would be developed through Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd., under a scheme known as Boot (Build, Own, Operate and Transfer). According to the appellant, the land in question cannot be utilized for any purpose other than the development of a truck terminal project. 4. The case of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, on the other hand, is that the Empowered Committee having regard to the subsequent events was of the opinion that establishment of truck terminal project, having regard to the all-round development in the area, would not be conducive for the public at large and especially for the residents of the surrounding areas. The case of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, on the other hand, is that the Empowered Committee having regard to the subsequent events was of the opinion that establishment of truck terminal project, having regard to the all-round development in the area, would not be conducive for the public at large and especially for the residents of the surrounding areas. The case of the State appears to be that as the entire area has now become a residential area, a revised plan has been chalked out, in terms whereof, the truck terminal project was sought to be located in National Highways and express ways far away from residential localities especially nearer to the bypass roads to avoid entry of trucks into the core city area for the bypass traffic. Accordingly, a decision had been taken to cancel the aforementioned G.O.Ms. No. 740, but, having regard to the pendency of a large number of writ petitions, the same could not be done. 5. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the lands having been acquired for a public purpose, it is permissible for the State to utilize the same for a different public purpose. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia submitted that when lands are acquired for a particular purpose, the same could not be utilized for purpose other than the purpose for which it was acquired and in support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society, Hyderabad v. State of A.P. (2000) 1 SCC 533 and State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka, 2001 AIR SC 437. 7. The learned Government Pleader for land acquisition, on the other hand submitted that it is permissible for the State to utilize the land for a different public purpose for which the lands were initially acquired having regard to the subsequent events. 8. G.O.Ms.No. 740 dated 24-12-1993 was issued by the State Government constituting an Empowered Committee for implementation of the truck terminal project in question on a time bound schedule on the following lines: (1) The project shall be implemented on a 'no loss no profit'- basis. The possible enhancement of land acquisition compensation by the Civil Courts as also a medicum of correspondent future enhances should be provided while working out the project economics. The possible enhancement of land acquisition compensation by the Civil Courts as also a medicum of correspondent future enhances should be provided while working out the project economics. A Chartered Accountant nominated by the TOHAS may be given access to accounts statements to ensure transparence. (2) To subsidise the cost of the land which is used for actual truck parking the area (which could be enhanced over the proposed 9.5 acres to accommodate at least 300 trucks) which is non-remunerative and to pay down the costs of other plots to provide economical services and amenities, the front row of plots should be auctioned by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) with appropriate architectural control, F.S.I. and land use to optitiose the bid realisation. All other plots including godown plots excluding parking area should be disposed off at rates fixed, keeping in view, but suitably less than the auction bids realised on the first row, to realise the project objective of 'no profit no loss'-...... (3) In the allotment of plots at prices as fixed, the Empowered Committee shall give first preference to parties recommended by TOHAS/State Motor Transport Operators Association to avoid speculation and encourage members themselves to develop the amenities suitable conditions for their timely development and subsequent use should be laid down. (4) A small technical team may be deputed to Haryana to study the planning of truck terminals developed in that State. The integrated truck terminal at Moosapet shall be a model for the nation for its efficiency, economy and above all austhetics.'- 9. It appears that pursuant to the above, a technical team consisting of Deputy Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Principal Traffic Engineer, Traffic Cell, HUDA and General Secretary, State Motor Transport Operators Association, Hyderabad visited Haryana and Delhi to study planning of truck parking complexes and submitted its report to the Government. 10. It appears that pursuant to the above, a technical team consisting of Deputy Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Principal Traffic Engineer, Traffic Cell, HUDA and General Secretary, State Motor Transport Operators Association, Hyderabad visited Haryana and Delhi to study planning of truck parking complexes and submitted its report to the Government. 10. However, it may be correct that the lands were acquired for the said purpose as would appear from the notification dated 18-12-1990, the relevant portion thereof, reads thus: 'Where as it appears to the Government of Andhra Pradesh that the lands specified below, are needed for a public purpose, to wit, establishment of Truck Terminal at Moosapet, notice to that effect is hereby given to all whom it may concern in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act XXXVIII of 1923, and the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby authorizes the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, his staff and workmen to exercise the powers conferred under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under sub-section (4) Section 17 of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh effects that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to this case.'- The public purpose notified in terms of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows: 'Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby declare that the lands specified below and measuring 33-23 acres, be the same a little more or less, are needed for a public purpose, to wit, for establishment of truck terminal at Moosapet village, Hyderabad, West Taluk, Ranga Reddy District and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development authority is appointed to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act and directed to take order for the acquisition of the said lands. Under sub-section (1)/(2) of Section 17 of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh further directs that the possession of the said lands may be taken on the expiry of 15 days after the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act. Under sub-section (1)/(2) of Section 17 of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh further directs that the possession of the said lands may be taken on the expiry of 15 days after the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act. A plan of the lands is kept in the Office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, and may be inspected at any time during office hours.'- 11. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether when the land was acquired for one public purpose, the same can be utilized for another public purpose- 12. The answer to the aforementioned question, in the considered opinion of this Court, must be rendered in affirmative. The land in question had been acquired for a public purpose. Once it was so done, it is not for the owner of the land or any other person to dictate as to what should be the public purpose. The project which had been undertaken by the State cannot be implemented at the place in question having regard to the subsequent event that owing to lapse of time the entire area surrounding the project area has become a residential area and if the project is established in the same locality, the purpose of establishment of a truck terminal project would be frustrated. In our opinion, this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the State to use the land acquired for a particular purpose. 13. In State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees Association vs. State of Karnataka(2 supra), the Apex Court was dealing with absolutely a different question. Therein, the right available to a beneficiary under the Land Acquisition Act to resist withdrawal of acquisition proceedings under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was considered by the Apex Court. The land in the said case was acquired for the benefit of a society. The society had paid the entire amount and at that stage, a notification withdrawing from acquisition came to be passed and in that situation, the Apex Court held that the beneficiary was entitled to an opportunity of hearing. 14. In Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society, Hyderabad vs. State of A.P. (1 supra) again the Apex Court was dealing with a different fact situation. 14. In Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society, Hyderabad vs. State of A.P. (1 supra) again the Apex Court was dealing with a different fact situation. There a contention was raised that the lands acquired may be permitted to be utilized for a public purpose other than the one for which the lands were acquired. But, in the said case, there had been no specific proposal from the State Government to utilize the land for any other public purpose. In the aforementioned situation, it was observed by the Apex Court: 'Once we uphold the validity of the proceedings for acquisition under the Acquisition Act, it has to follow that the lands have to be utilized for the purposes for which they were acquired.'- The question, which has fallen for consideration in this appeal, did not fall for consideration in the said case. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 15. On the other hand, in State of Kerala vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, 1997 AIR SC 2703. : 2010 AIR (SC) 3817) it has categorically been held that when some lands cannot be utilized after completion of public purpose for which the same had been acquired, the same should be put to public auction. 16. In State of Bihar vs. Kamaswhar Singh, 1952 AIR SC 252 : 2008 AIR (SC) 2054) it was held that the question of public purpose is justiciable provided there are materials on record to show that Government acted blindly or mala fide. 17. In Smt. Somawanti vs. State of Punjab, 1963 AIR SC 151 the Supreme Court observed: 'it is always open to the State to fix priorities amongst public utilities of different kinds, bearing in mind the needs of the State, the existing facilities and other relevant factors. It is for the State Govt. to say which particular industry may be regarded as beneficial to the public and to decide that its establishment would serve a public purpose. No question or discrimination would, therefore, arise merely by reason of the fact that Government has declared that the establishment of a particular industry is a public purpose.'- 18. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Indian Vegetarian Congress vs. State of West Bengal, 1999 AIR Cal. 212 : 2008 7 SCC 663 ). This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Indian Vegetarian Congress vs. State of West Bengal, 1999 AIR Cal. 212 : 2008 7 SCC 663 ). In the instant case, the petitioner has not claimed any interest in the land acquired. 19. In Ghuylam Mustafa vs. State of Maharashtra, 1977 AIR SC 448 where the Municipal Committee had sold away the excess land marking them out into separate plots for a housing colony, it was held: 'Apart from the fact that a housing colony is a public necessity, once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring authority diverts it a public purpose other than the one stated in Section 5(3) declaration.'- 20. In C. Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu8, it has clearly been held by the Apex Court that the public purpose for which the land was acquired can be substituted for another public purpose. 21. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by one of us- V.V.S. Rao, J., in Koppula Narasiah vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh9. 22. The Government on a consideration of the ground-realities which emerged subsequent to the acquisition of the lands i.e., all-round development that had taken place surrounding the area and keeping in view the overall interest of the general public residing in residential area that had come into being and taking into consideration the opinion of the Empowered Committee, had taken a decision not to implement G.O.Ms.No.740 and decided to utilize the land acquired for some other purpose. The decision based on such ground-realities in our considered opinion, cannot be said to be arbitrary. This Court, in exercise of the power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct implementation of the scheme. Even otherwise also, in view of the decisions referred to above, the Government is not precluded form utilizing the land acquired for one public purpose for some other public purpose. 23. This Court, in exercise of the power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct implementation of the scheme. Even otherwise also, in view of the decisions referred to above, the Government is not precluded form utilizing the land acquired for one public purpose for some other public purpose. 23. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has decided the matter correctly and the same does not warrant interference. 24. For the reasons aforementioned, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.