As per case facts, the writ petitioners' land was acquired for a public purpose—employment generation and socio-economic development by setting up Telcon & Allied Industrial Units. Later, the land was ... leased to another private company for an industrial park. The writ petitioners challenged this acquisition and the subsequent lease deed, arguing the acquisition was for a company, not a public purpose, and the land's use was diverted. They also questioned the award being in an individual's name and the lack of regulatory permissions. The Writ Court dismissed their petition, leading to the current appeal. The question arose whether the acquisition process was valid, the land's use consistent with the acquisition purpose, and if the Writ Court's dismissal was justified. Finally, the High Court held that the writ petition was maintainable but affirmed the Writ Court's dismissal on merits. It ruled that the acquisition was for a public purpose, its utilization remained consistent, and issues regarding awardee name and permissions were not grounds to vitiate the long-concluded acquisition, especially given prior challenges up to the Apex Court and majority compensation acceptance.