Ram Kishan and anr. Vs. Ram Chandra

.....eviction) act, 1972 - appeal against eviction proceedings - fresh plea raised in second appeal - licencee cannot be evicted without order of district magistrate - this plea cannot be raised now - held, appeal not maintainable. - 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 particular piece of land for a particular public.....b.k. rathi, j.1. heard sri pankaj mitthal, learned counsel for the appellants and sri satya prakash and sri a, n. sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.2. the respondent is real brother of appellant nos. 1 and 2 and son of appellant no. 3. he filed a suit for eviction against the appellants alleging that they were licensees. the suit was decreed by the trial court. the first appellate court has dismissed the appeal. therefore, the present second appeal has been filed.3. it is contended that the licencee cannot be evicted without the order of the district magistrate as provided in clause (5) of section 2a of u. p. act no. 13 of 1972.4. this argument cannot be accepted as there is no plea that u. p. act no. 13 of 1972, apply to the premises in dispute. the plea was taken for the first time in the appeal, which was rejected on the ground that there is no allegations that u. p. act no. 13 of 1972, apply to the premises in dispute. therefore, this plea cannot be permitted to be raised now. apart from it, the regular suit for eviction is not barred under section 2a of the act.5. next it is contended that licence was revoked by notice dated 26.6.1995 and thereafter the licence was extended for a period of one year. the suit was filed in the year 1996. therefore, the notice terminating the licence was waived. however, no notice is required for termination of the licence, as it was not coupled with the grant.6. i find that no substantial question of law arises for decision in this appeal. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.