Smt. Manorama Devi and ors. Vs. District Magistrate 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. .....e.o., ghaziabad declaring accommodation in dispute to be vacant. it is ground floor portion of house no. 47 ahata of bhoudumal, situate at g.t. road, ghaziabad which was initially in occupation of p.w.d. at the rent of rs. 1,600 per month. it was vacated in november, 1991.3. before r.c. & e.o. landlord contended that current presumptive rent of the accommodation in dispute would be more than rs. 9,000 per month and first floor accommodation had been let out for rs. 2,420 per month. r.c. & e.o. held that current presumptive rent is of no value and for the purpose of determining applicability of the act old rent is relevant.4. i do not agree with the reasoning given by r.c. & e.o. at the time of consideration of allotment application if the building is actually vacant and in possession of the landlord current presumptive rent will have to be determined for deciding applicability of the act. by virtue of section 2(g) of u.p. urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) act, 1972, as added in 1995 the act does not apply to a building rent of which is more than rs. 2,000 per month. the building which was let out before 1991 for rs. 1,600 per month could easily be let out for more than rs. 2,000 per month in 1996.5. accordingly, writ petition is allowed, impugned order being illegal and without jurisdiction is set aside.