Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. orderamitava lala, j.1. this writ petition has been made to obtain an appropriate direction upon the registrar general of this high court to keep 2% of the posts in direct recruitment to u.p.h.j.s. 09 reserved for the candidates of dependent of freedom fighters. the learned counsel has relied upon u.p. public services (reservation of physically handicapped, dependents of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen) (amendment) act, 1997. he said that by way of amendment in section 3(1) there shall be reservation at the stage of direct recruitment in public services, i.e., two per cent of vacancies for dependents of freedom fighters and one per cent of vacancies for ex-servicemen.2. however, we have considered the constitution bench judgment of the supreme court in state of bthar and anr. v. bal mukund sah and ors. : 2000 (iv) scc 6,40, which speaks as follows:any scheme of reservation foisted on the high court without consultation with it directly results in truncating the high court's power of playing a vital role in the recruitment of eligible candidates to fill up these vacancies and hence such appointments on reserved posts would remain totally ultra vires the scheme of the constitution enacted for that purpose by the founding fathers. 3. we have also gone through the full bench judgment of our high court in sarika v. state of u.p. and ors. : 2005 (4) esc 2378 (all), where also it has been held that the reservation will be made, if required, for the judicial service by the state government, then it should be made in consultation with the high court. therefore, when such full court of this high court did not approve any such proposal for reservation, we are of view that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered and as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.shishir kumar, j.4. i agree.