JUDGMENT : These writ petitions raise an essential question as to the power and limitation of the Executive Government to dispose of the land absolutely vested with them mainly acquired through the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Admittedly, the lands belonged to the petitioners in all these writ petitions were acquired to construct an irrigation canal under the Kallada Irrigation Project. The total extent of the land acquired from this area would come to around 17 Hectares, during 1970-80. 2. It appears that the construction of the irrigation canal through the petitioners lands was dropped or abandoned. According to the petitioners, the lands remained unutilized. They would submit that the lands remained part of their property even though ownership and title vested with the State. They would further submit that the lands acquired pass through the middle of the property of some of the petitioners and some of them are using it as an access. Specific grievances raised by each of the petitioners reproduced hereunder: Sl. No. W.P.(C) Nos. Specific grievances 1 34990/18 Land acquired is frontage. Will be no road access & landlocked. Cause loss and depreciation to remaining registered holdings. 2 34935/18 Land acquired pass through middle of property. If allotted unable to access/ utilise remaining land. It is close to residential house, intrusion of stranger cause hardships. 3 34988/18 Land acquired pass through middle of property. If allotted unable to access/utilise remaining land. 4 34924/18 1st plot was square land acquired diagonally thus two unconnected triangular plots. 2nd plot – Land acquired pass through middle of property. If allotted unable to access/utilise remaining land. 5 34956/18 Land acquired is frontage. Will be no road access. Land acquired pass through middle of property. If allotted unable to access house. 6 34960/18 Land acquired is frontage of house (1.5 mtr away) pass through middle. Will be no road access. If allotted unable to access house and result in intrusion by strangers would cause hardships. 7 35027/18 Land acquired 1 mtr away from kitchen. If allotted intrusion by strangers would cause hardships. 8 34974/18 Land acquired frontage of house and is the only road access. Petitioner has no other land. 9 35019/18 Land acquired pass through middle of the property. Remaining lying as narrow strips, unfit for other purpose. 10 34997/18 Land acquired is frontage of house (1.5 mtr away). If allotted result in intrusion by strangers and would cause hardships. 8 34974/18 Land acquired frontage of house and is the only road access. Petitioner has no other land. 9 35019/18 Land acquired pass through middle of the property. Remaining lying as narrow strips, unfit for other purpose. 10 34997/18 Land acquired is frontage of house (1.5 mtr away). If allotted result in intrusion by strangers and would cause hardships. 11 35099/18 Land acquired close to house & well. If allotted result in intrusion by strangers and would cause hardships. 12 34904/18 Land acquired 1 mtr away from building. If allotted result in intrusion by strangers and would cause hardships. 13 34940/18 Land acquired pass through middle. Remaining land lying as narrow stretches. No sufficient width, unfit for any useful purpose. 14 34981/18 Land acquired pass through middle. Remaining land lying as narrow stretches. No sufficient width, unfit for any useful purpose (kavu & pond situated in remaining land). 3. The Government appears to have decided to assign the acquired lands which remained unutilised to the landless under a scheme formulated by the Government in that regard. At this juncture, the petitioners moved the Government. According to the petitioners, the Government taking note of the hardships and grievances decided to return the lands to the petitioners. This was on a condition that the petitioners should make available any other alternative land having an extent of five times than the property which was acquired from each of them for the Kallada Irrigation Project, to be distributed to the beneficiaries of the State-run 'Bhoorahitharillatha Keralam' project. The petitioners, acting upon the promise, identified lands in Palakkad District and purchased it. Those lands were found suitable by the revenue. This purchase was made on believing that the Government would reconvey the land acquired from them. 4. The Government decision to return the land on conditions as above was based on Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. This decision was taken on 18.1.2016. The promise was that, on conveying the lands having five times larger extent of the lands in Palakkad District, the Government would return the lands acquired from the petitioners. As seen from the communication issued by the Tahsildar, the petitioners were directed to make available all revenue documents related to the property in Palakkad District to complete the procedure for the return of the lands acquired from them. 5. As seen from the communication issued by the Tahsildar, the petitioners were directed to make available all revenue documents related to the property in Palakkad District to complete the procedure for the return of the lands acquired from them. 5. While the matter was pending so, the Government by order dated 25.5.2017 revoked its earlier decision. The reason for revocation is that the previous decision of the Government was contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and Ors. [ (2003) 1 SCC 335 ] ; Sachidanand Pandey & Another V. State of West Bengal and Others [ (1987) 2 SCC 295 ] and New India Public School and Others v. HUDA and Others [ (1996) 5 SCC 510 ]. The Government was of the view that the lands cannot be returned to the petitioners without following the procedures as laid down in the above dicta. Consequent proceedings were also issued by the revenue officials according to the Government decision. The petitioners also made an attempt to review the Government decision. However, the Government reiterated its earlier stand. Accordingly, the petitioners approached this Court. 6. Heard Shri Jacob P. Alex, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Jaffar Khan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jacob P.Alex argued extensively and submitted that the petitioners acted upon the promise and purchased the lands in Palakkad District, five times larger in the extent of the acquired land and therefore, the Government cannot withdraw from the promise. It was argued that when no other overwhelming public interest subsists for the Government to resile from the promise, the Government is bound to act upon its promise. The learned counsel referred to the judgments in the impugned Government order and submitted that those judgments have no application as those judgments were rendered referring to the executive power of the Government to reconvey the land to the erstwhile owner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the decision of the Government is based on the power conferred under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. This decision was taken based on public interest and noting the hardships endured to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the decision of the Government is based on the power conferred under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. This decision was taken based on public interest and noting the hardships endured to the petitioners. It is submitted that if third parties start occupying the land belonging to the petitioners under any other scheme, that will affect the privacy, tranquillity, etc., of the petitioners to reside and occupy their remaining land. I shall advert to the precedents relied upon by Shri Jacob P.Alex in the latter part of the judgment. 8. The learned Government Pleader Shri Jaffar Khan, ably defending the State Government submitted that there is no public interest involved for invoking Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. The learned Government Pleader argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be relied upon against the statutory provisions. It is also submitted that the Government decided to revoke its earlier decision as the Government was satisfied that there was no public interest and the Government cannot reconvey the land to identifiable groups or individuals without devising any transparent procedures as contemplated in the decisions referred in the impugned order. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance upon various precedents of this Court as well as the Apex Court to substantiate his argument. 9. The State of Kerala enacted the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 and its preamble state that it was enacted to remove doubts as to the validity of the limitations and restrictions imposed in assignments of land by the Government or under their authority. On a close reading of various provisions of the enactment, it is abundantly clear that the enactment placed control on the power of the State Government to assign the Government land. It identifies individuals or group of individuals for assignment of land. As seen from Section 7, the power is conferred upon the State Government to make Rules. Based on the powers conferred on the State Government, under Section 7, the Government made Rules, namely, the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. It enumerates the purposes for which the land may be assigned (See Rule 4). Various procedures have been laid down to ensure transparency to be followed in assigning Government land. It also prescribes the priority to be observed in the assignment. It enumerates the purposes for which the land may be assigned (See Rule 4). Various procedures have been laid down to ensure transparency to be followed in assigning Government land. It also prescribes the priority to be observed in the assignment. Residuary power is also conferred on the Government under Rule 24 to assign the land without following the procedures under the Rules, in the public interest. This power confers the Government to assign the land to an individual or identifiable group, on public interest. Perhaps the moot question that arises, in this case, is as to the satisfaction of public interest by the Government while deciding to assign the land to the petitioners. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Parameswaran Pillai and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [1961 KHC 301] considered a dispute about the assignment of land to Secretary, Martyrs Committee, Alleppey. In the said judgment, many other similar challenges were considered. The challenges were on the ground that the assignment was made in contravention of Section 4 of the Travancore-Cochin Government Land Assignment Act No.XXXIII of 1950. Section 4 prescribes a procedure for the assignment of Government land. It stipulates that the authorised officer shall notify for public auction for assignment of Government land. The Division Bench held that the Act XXXIII of 1950 confers no other power of assignment on the Government other than controlled by Section 4 and Section 5 of the said Act. 11. In Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Others [ AIR 1985 SC 1147 ], the Apex Court succinctly distinguished disposal of private property by individuals and socialist property by the State. The Apex Court observed that unlike private property owners, a welfare State being the owner of public property has no similar freedom while disposing of public property. Therefore, it was held that the Government must act in the public interest and it cannot act arbitrarily and without any reason. It was observed that the socialist property may be disposed at a price lower than the market price or even for a token price to achieve some defined constitutionally recognised public purpose. In the absence of any public purpose, governmental action will have to be tested against the reasonableness of such action of the State. 12. It was observed that the socialist property may be disposed at a price lower than the market price or even for a token price to achieve some defined constitutionally recognised public purpose. In the absence of any public purpose, governmental action will have to be tested against the reasonableness of such action of the State. 12. In Bhaskaran Pillai v. State of Kerala [1991 KHC 408] the Division Bench of this Court had considered an issue which has similarity to this case. The Government decided to reconvey the land acquired to the erstwhile owner on the basis of Government order. The Division Bench held that the Government cannot reconvey the land based on Government order. It was further held that the Government has to follow the procedure laid down in the Land Assignment Act and Rules for assignment. At para.12 of the above judgment, it was observed as follows: In assigning the land to the 4th respondent there is no allegation nor any proof that public interest is involved and the assignment was solely based on the fact that he was the erstwhile owner. Such an assignment could not be made ignoring the provisions in the Act and the Rules. If, as we have held, assignment can be made only under the provisions of the Land Assignment Act and the Rules, certainly the petitioner also will be entitled to apply if he is able to satisfy the other conditions mentioned in the Act and the Rules. In that view of the matter also, the petitioner has locus standi to file this O.P. as his claim for assignment of the land was rejected solely on the ground that the land is needed for a public purpose, which seems to be incorrect in the light of the subsequent events. 13. The State Government challenged the above Division Bench judgment in an appeal before the Apex Court. The civil appeal filed by the State was dismissed affirming the judgment of the Division Bench. The Apex Court, while dismissing the appeal in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai [1997 KHC 353] held as follows: The question emerges : whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting higher value. 14. In Sachidanand Pandey's case [ (1987) 2 SCC 295 ], the Apex Court, after referring to the speech of Chief of Seattle, in response to American Governments Land Treaty to buy the native lands, elaborately dealt with Government's power to dispose of State property. The Apex Court addressed the issue in public interest litigation in regard to a challenge against the construction of a hotel in the vicinity of a Zoological Garden. The Apex Court opined that public auction or tender, instead of negotiation is the proper mechanism for alienating the State land or property. In para.40 it was held as follows: On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the following propositions may be taken as well established: State-owned or public- owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism. The Apex Court after appreciating the probity under negotiation and noting that, negotiation had addressed public interest, repelled the challenge to allotment of land to Taj Group of Hotels based on the negotiation. The paramount consideration emphasised by the Apex Court is that the act of the State should not result in arbitrariness. 15. In New India Public School v. HUDA [ (1996) 5 SCC 510 ], the Apex Court considered the mode of disposal of sites for public purpose by public authority. The Apex Court, after referring to Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978 was of the view that there should be a fair procedure and the public authorities are bound to make necessary guidelines to exercise their discretionary power. The Apex Court deprecated the practice of disposing State property on any extraneous consideration. 16. The Apex Court in Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh and Ors. [ (2003) 1 SCC 335 ], while considering a matter arising from unused land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held that the erstwhile land owner cannot ask to return the land merely for the reason that the purpose of acquisition ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for other purposes. 17. Land once acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Government becomes the absolute owner of the land. (See Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). The ultimate ownership of such land vests with the State. The Government acts as a trustee to manage and dispose of such Government property. The Government may dispose the property either to augment revenue or based on public interest. There is no embargo for the Government in disposing of property belonging to the State under our Constitution. Article 298 confers executive power on the State to hold and dispose of the property subject to safeguards referred therein. 18. Is there any fetter for the Executive to dispose of the property to individuals or any other entity? There is no embargo for the Government in disposing of property belonging to the State under our Constitution. Article 298 confers executive power on the State to hold and dispose of the property subject to safeguards referred therein. 18. Is there any fetter for the Executive to dispose of the property to individuals or any other entity? I must answer this question in affirmative. The disposal of the property must be in public interest. The Executive Government is the prudent manager of State property. The Executive Government has to, therefore, exercise its discretion while disposing of the State property. The public interest must actuate this discretion. Public interest may be relatable to the interest of the Government or relatable to the persons or entity who seeks the assignment. If the property belonged to the State remain unutilised, and the Government see no purpose or prospects in keeping the property as idle, the Government may dispose of the property to augment or generate the revenue or to protect the property itself if the Government cannot manage the same. In that case, the executive power cannot be exercised to choose person or entity without devising a transparent procedure, giving an opportunity to all interested persons to purchase it. The person buying the land may have an only commercial interest or private interest. This is the public interest related to the Government. However, the same person can be identified in the public interest by the State Government for disposing of its property. If the interest of the buyer of the land would subserve public interest, then there is no embargo for the Executive Government to assign the land to an identifiable individual or entity. In a quest to boost the economy, the Government may attract investors by providing Government land. The buyer even though is having a commercial interest or private interest, the Government, would proceed to assign the land on larger interest of the State to boost the economy. Another scenario of assignment or disposal of the State property is in accordance with the scheme formulated in the public interest. This is often reflected through legislation or policy formulated by the Government. In these categories of assignments, the assignment in favour of person or entity is based on public interest relatable to the assignees. 19. Another scenario of assignment or disposal of the State property is in accordance with the scheme formulated in the public interest. This is often reflected through legislation or policy formulated by the Government. In these categories of assignments, the assignment in favour of person or entity is based on public interest relatable to the assignees. 19. The executive power of the State Government flows from Article 298 to hold and dispose of the property is limited by the constitutional mandate itself as referable under Article 14. This power is now well entrenched to Rule 24 of Land Assignment Rules. Be the power as exercised without reference to Rule 24 or not, executive power cannot be invoked violating the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. That means the Government action must be consistent with principles of fairness to cloth such action as legal and valid. The aspect of fairness is the facet of public interest. Rule 24 of the Land Assignment Rules commences with a non-obstante clause. This empowers the Government to override other procedural aspects contemplated in Land Assignment Rules to assign and dispose of the Government land. Rule 4 to 7 of the Land Assignment Rules prescribe nature of public purpose and modalities to be followed in the land assignment. This is not to be adhered to while the Government invoking its power under Rule 24 while assigning land in the public interest. Whether or not statutory power invoked the power of the Government to dispose and assign State property is circumscribed as above to dispose the same only on public interest either relatable to the Government or the assignee. 20. In that background, it is also appropriate to elucidate what is 'public interest'. The expression' public interest' cannot be defined in a straight jacket formula. In a normative sense, for the Government, it must be a matter of governance. In that sense, it must proceed as a perspective that represents governance. In a welfare State, the Government encounters with numerous issues from its citizens for solutions. If the issue has to be addressed by the Government, even if it pertains to an individual, that becomes public interest. It is not the commonality or collective nature of such demand that determines the public interest. In a welfare State, the Government encounters with numerous issues from its citizens for solutions. If the issue has to be addressed by the Government, even if it pertains to an individual, that becomes public interest. It is not the commonality or collective nature of such demand that determines the public interest. It may be a factor in certain circumstances; an individual may also be placed in a precarious situation on account of actions beyond his control. It is for the Government to address such issues of the citizen. 21. In Black's Law Dictionary, VIII Edn., 'public interest' has been defined as follows: The general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection. Something in which the public as a whole has a stake. The above definition would show that the attributes of public interest reflect the commonality of the claim that would have been raised either collectively or individually. This commonality of the claim is capable of considering as a derivation of such right collectively or commonly available to others. One attributes of public interest are that it must represent a collective or of the common welfare of the community. Individual claims such benefit as derived from the collective or common welfare being a member of such a collective group. 22. The public interest is the aspect of group rights or collective rights, modern Government address the individual rights consistent with the scheme of group rights or collective rights. All group rights are available to the individual; however, all individual rights are not group rights. What differentiates these rights is whether the Government is obliged to address these claims while exercising its public power or not. Merely because an individual made such a claim, it will not make such claim bereft of the public interest. In a representative democracy, democratic politics interpret the public interest. The decision as above is the best approximation to redress the grievances of the citizens. The democratic Government is, therefore, bound to address and hear the affected persons to resolve their problems. The heart of democracy lies in the capacity of the executive Government to address the grievances of the people. In that, the Government ordain themselves to redress the grievances objectively focusing on the problems than the individuals. The democratic Government is, therefore, bound to address and hear the affected persons to resolve their problems. The heart of democracy lies in the capacity of the executive Government to address the grievances of the people. In that, the Government ordain themselves to redress the grievances objectively focusing on the problems than the individuals. That power is not denied to the executive for the reason that the individual is before the Government and the problem presented is peculiar to him. The modern democratic Government function through participation in one's development through an open and non-discriminatory process to weed out perceived injustice and wrong to ensure the well-being and welfare of the individuals. If there is no space to voice people's grievance that will negate the very idea of the democratic character of such Government. In modern constitutional jurisprudence, fundamental rights claimed horizontally against non State actors or a private individual are justiciable. 23. Though public interest is often identified synonymously with public welfare or larger welfare of the society, it has to be understood contextually in the background of legislation. The Legislature while enacting the Land Assignment Act had only intended to put control over the unbridled power of the executive Government to dispose of the property. Public interest referred under Rule 24 of the Land Assignment Rules has to be understood to check the power of the Government while it decides to dispose of State property. That means that the Government must act fairly and transparently without any extraneous consideration. It is not necessary that land assigned should be utilised for a public purpose or larger welfare of the society. That is the reason for referring to 'beneficial enjoyment' in the Land Assignment Rules having mentioned to adjoining registered holders. They also have been recognised for assignment of State land. If the power exercised by the Government is not abuse and does not carry malice or bad faith, it would satisfy the test of public interest. 24. In the matter of land acquisition, the landowners are compelled to part away from their precious land consequent upon compulsory acquisition. If the acquisition is only part of the land, it results in fragmentation of such land. The erstwhile landowners would be in a disadvantageous position to enjoy his remaining land. 24. In the matter of land acquisition, the landowners are compelled to part away from their precious land consequent upon compulsory acquisition. If the acquisition is only part of the land, it results in fragmentation of such land. The erstwhile landowners would be in a disadvantageous position to enjoy his remaining land. Right of the adjoining owner is recognised as a matter of right in some personal laws as pre-emption right, and It can also be formed as the subject matter of contract. Law always recognises such rights of the adjoining landowners. The landowners might have been paid compensation for injuries or loss of enjoyment of the remaining land. In an involuntary acquisition, the Government can always consider returning the land acquired to the erstwhile owner, if such owner is having remaining land for utilisation. The privacy right is also now well recognised as a fundamental right. The Government, therefore, is required to address such grievance, which is a matter of governance. A landowner whose land has been acquired in entirety cannot demand the return of his land if it remains unutilised. In such cases, the Government can only dispose of the unutilised land through transparent procedures like public tender. Certainly, the Government can address the grievances of landowners whose lands have been acquired partially. If the Government find that their grievances are genuine, the Government is empowered to return the land to the erstwhile owner on a consideration based on the market value. The Government would be justified in such circumstances in returning the land to the erstwhile owner on satisfying two parameters as follows: (i). The erstwhile owner is required to enjoy the property along with his remaining land. (ii). Adequate consideration. 25. The upshot of discussions as above reflect the law on the power of the Executive Government to dispose of State property is as follows: (i). Executive Government has the power to dispose and assign the State property to an identifiable individual or entity on public interest. (ii). Executive Government has no power to assign the State property to identifiable individual or entity if such assignment is not relatable to the public interest of the assignee without devising transparent procedure and without giving an opportunity to all. (iii). (ii). Executive Government has no power to assign the State property to identifiable individual or entity if such assignment is not relatable to the public interest of the assignee without devising transparent procedure and without giving an opportunity to all. (iii). Executive Government has the power to assign the State property in favour of any persons or entity not relatable to the public interest of such assignee by devising the transparent procedure like public auction or tender. (iv). The executive power of the State Government coexists with the power conferred under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. (v). The executive power of the State Government to dispose of the property dehors the procedures contemplated under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules is only based on public interest. 26. In this case, the Government originally decided to assign land in favour of the petitioners on conditions aforenoted. Those conditions were also fulfilled by the petitioners by purchasing land in Palakkad District. Therefore, it is argued that the Government cannot resile from the promise made. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jacob Alex placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Others [ (2016) 6 SCC 766 ] and Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India [1997 KHC 508] would argue that the Government cannot arbitrarily resile from its promise especially when promisee acted upon such promise. The learned Govt. pleader Jaffar Khan rebutted this argument placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s.Darshan Oils Pvt. Ltd and Another v. Union of India and Others [1995 KHC 749] argued that promissory estoppel could not be invoked when it was done in public interest. The learned Government Pleader further argued that the original decision of the Government is contrary to its power conferred under Rule 24 as it was done without adverting to public interest involved. Therefore, it was argued that no promise would bind this Government if it is shown that original action itself was illegal and opposite to statutory provisions. 27. There cannot be a doubt that the Government is bound by its promise if such promise is valid, especially when the promisee acted upon such promise. The Government can resile from the promise only by pointing out the overriding public interest. 27. There cannot be a doubt that the Government is bound by its promise if such promise is valid, especially when the promisee acted upon such promise. The Government can resile from the promise only by pointing out the overriding public interest. However, going through the order dated 18.1.2016, I find the Government had not adverted to any public interest that was projected by the petitioners. It appears that the Government was persuaded to take such a decision merely on a counter promise made by the petitioners to purchase five times larger extent of the land than the total land acquired. It is not a consideration that determines the public interest. The public interest presupposes the Government land required to be assigned on public interest relatable to the State or the assignee. That means the subject of the assignment must connect or relate the Government and the person with the public interest. If the decision of the Government to assign the land to a person on public interest relatable to the Government, then the Government can dispose of such property only after devising a transparent procedure like public auction or tender. The Government, in such a scenario, cannot sell land directly to a particular individual or entity or group without the procedure as referred above. If the assignment is based on public interest relatable to individual or entity or group, it is possible for the Government to dispose of the land in favour of such person without following any other procedure as contemplated under the Land Assignment Rules. The Government has the power to do so either referable to as an executive power or under Rule 24. However, the Government is bound to demonstrate public interest with reasons in such disposal. 28. The Government in this case had originally decided to return the land to the erstwhile owners. This was without examining whether the petitioners are eligible for return in the light of the discussions as above. If the grievances of the petitioners as projected in these writ petitions and the land is required for the enjoyment of the remaining land, certainly, their claim would satisfy the test of public interest. 29. The review by the Government of its earlier decision dated 18.1.2016 was on unsustainable grounds. Scope of review in such circumstances is limited. The Government can only examine whether test as above has been satisfied or not. 29. The review by the Government of its earlier decision dated 18.1.2016 was on unsustainable grounds. Scope of review in such circumstances is limited. The Government can only examine whether test as above has been satisfied or not. The Government is bound by its promise, especially when the promise was acted upon. The review of such a decision is only possible if the earlier decision was not in conformity with the law. In the absence of any finding of breach of the law as above, the impugned order cannot be sustained legally. 30. However, I find from the earlier order of the Government dated 18.1.2016 ordering return of the land that there was no such examination of public interest expounded in this judgment as above. If the Government is of the view that before passing such an order, there was no such examination, the Government is given liberty to reexamine the matter. So also, if the Government is of the view that consideration was inadequate as the land purchased in Palakkad do not represent the market value of the land value to be returned, in such circumstances, it is appropriate for the Government to reexamine the matter. If the Government finds there is no scope for reexamination as above, acting upon the earlier Government order, dated 18.1.2016, the Government shall take necessary steps to implement its decision dated 18.1.2016. An appropriate decision shall be taken by the Government within three months. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to the extent as above. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.