Vikram Singh Vs. District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies 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. .....has filed this writ petition challenging his order of termination-dated 5.1.1997, which was passed on the ground that there was a ban on appointment in 1992 when the petitioner was appointed.4. the petitioner submits that the ban on appointments was imposed by the registrar by order-dated 23.5.1992. he alleges that he was appointed on 1.4.1992 before 23.5.1992, i.e., the date of imposition of ban hence, his services could not have been terminated on the ground given in the letter of termination of his services and that he had been working satisfactorily for about 5 years and his appointment cannot be cancelled without any notice or opportunity of hearing before terminating his services particularly when his appointment had been approved.5. the petitioner, has also relied upon circular dated 8.1.1993, which provides that no order for termination of employees will be passed without prior approval of the district assistant registrar, co-operative societies.6. no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents inspite of services. the allegation in the writ petition have not been denied and the petitioner is working under the interim order of this court dated 7.4.1997.7. it is clear that appointment of the petitioner was made before the imposition of ban and the impugned order of termination has been passed without, prior approval of the district assistant registrar, co-operative societies. the principles of natural justice have also not been complied with and the order has been passed arbitrarily and without application of mind.8. for these reasons the writ petition is succeeds and allowed. the impugnedorder dated 5.1.1997, is quashed. no order as to cost.