motor vehicles - writ jurisdiction - sections 166 and 173 of motor vehicles act, 1988 and article 226 of constitution of india - motor accident claims tribunal - held to be social welfare tribunal - person aggrieved by order may approach court - held, writ not maintainable against its order. - land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under 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.....anjani kumar, j.1. by means of present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, petitioner challenges the order dated 17.2.1997, annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by the motor accident claims tribunal, jaunpur in review application no. 21 of 1996, arising out of motor accident claim petition no. 79 of 1995, decided on 10.9.1996.2. heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length. it is clear from the scheme of the motor vehicles act, 1988, that the claimant before the motor accident claims tribunal, which is a special remedy, may approach provided under the act which has been held to be social welfare legislation and statute prescribes the remedy of filing an appeal against the orders passed by the tribunal or this court. in this view of the matter petitioner, if feels aggrieved by the order passed by the tribunal, he may, if so advised, approach this court on the appellate side as contemplated under the act. this being the legal position, that writ petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.3. in view of what has beenstated above, the writ petition isdismissed as not maintainable. theinterim order, if any, stands vacated.however, the parties shall bear theirown costs.