held: writ - alternative remedy--rushing to the high court with a writ petition, when statutory remedies are available and are also being pursued, is misconceived. constitution of india: article 226.;petition dismissed. - 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 purpose.
section 4;.....orderravi s. dhavan and v.p. goel, jj.1. the order sought to be impugned, which aggrieves the petitioner, is dated 27.2.1998 (annexure 8 to the writ petition).2. this order has been issued by the superintendent, central excise, range-1, khatima, respondent no. 7.3. the petitioner accepts that in some matters appeals have been filed and are pending and in some matters hearing has concluded but judgment is awaited. learned counsel fairly concedes that any interim order which could be passed by the high court can be passed by the authority which is seized of the appeals. in the context of the present case the commissioner (appeals) under section 35f of the central excise and salt act, 1944 is the appellate authority, and the petitioner has a remedy to approach the appellate authority and seek consideration of an ad-interim prayer. rushing in a writ petition before the high court with an alternate remedy available was mis-conceived.4. the writ petition is consigned to the record and dismissed.