Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Betwa River Board, Through Its Secretary and ors.

Ramesh Kumar vs Union of India (Uoi), Through Betwa River Board, Through Its Secretary and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 21, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/490604

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/490604
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: R.K. Dash and ;Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 21, 2003
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26701 of 2003
Subject: Commercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- 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...

Key legal issue: Commercial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh Kumar

Advocate S.F.A. Naqvi, Adv.

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi), Through Betwa River Board, Through Its Secretary and ors.

Advocate S.C. and ;K.K. Parekh, Adv.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and
Reported In: (2003)2UPLBEC1728

Excerpt

.....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. - so, at best he can be allowed two months more to operate his fishing right......was extended to the petitioner in a cladestine manner without holding any public auction. by making such false statement he obtained interim order on 3.7.2002 restraining the petitioner to operate his fishing right. the petitioner challenged the order in the apex court and their lordships by order dated 2.9.2002 stayed the operation of the said order. ultimately, the special leave petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and this court's order was set-aside. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the order of this court he could not operate his fishing right for one year, that is, from 16.6.2002 to 15.6.2003 and therefore, auction notice given by the authorities dated 30.5.2003 be quashed and the petitioner be allowed to operate his fishing right for one year. in support of his contention he has relied upon a decision reported in (2003) 1 scc 726, beg raj singh v. state of u.p. and others.5. we have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. we have also gone through the judgment of the apex court referred to above. the petitioner, in our opinion, cannot claim extension of fishing right for one year. admittedly, in view of the interim order dated 3.7.2002 of this court, petitioner could not operate his fishing right, but on 2.9.2002 the aforesaid order was stayed by the apex court. so, once this court's order was stayed by the apex court, there was no impediment on the part of the petitioner to continue his fishing right. if at all there was any restraint either by the authorities or anybody else he should have immediately approached this court or the ape court for necessary orders. that was, however, not done and only after the lease period was over, he filed the present writ petition mainly seeking for quashing of the impugned auction notice dated 30.5.2003 and allowing him to operate his fishing right.6. to repeat with, petitioner lost only two months to operate of his fishing right because of.....

Full Judgment

R.K. Dash and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.

2. One Moti Lal has filed an application for impleadment as respondent. Prayer is refused and impleadment application is rejected.

3. This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs :-

'(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned auction notice dated 30.5.2003, passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 2);

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his fishing rights, which were lost because of apathy of respondents between 16.6.2002 to 15.6.2003;

(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

(iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.'

4. Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into a contract with the Superintending Engineer, Rajghat Dam Circle to undertake fishing work for a period of three years commencing from 2000 which was to expire or 15.6.2003. One Mohd. Akram filed a Writ Petition Bearing No. 24754 of 2002 urging that fishing right for the third year was extended to the petitioner in a cladestine manner without holding any public auction. By making such false statement he obtained interim order on 3.7.2002 restraining the petitioner to operate his fishing right. The petitioner challenged the order in the Apex Court and their Lordships by order dated 2.9.2002 stayed the operation of the said order. Ultimately, the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and this Court's Order was set-aside. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that because of the order of this Court he could not operate his fishing right for one year, that is, from 16.6.2002 to 15.6.2003 and therefore, auction notice given by the authorities dated 30.5.2003 be quashed and the petitioner be allowed to operate his fishing right for one year. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision reported in (2003) 1 SCC 726, Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. The petitioner, in our opinion, cannot claim extension of fishing right for one year. Admittedly, in view of the interim order dated 3.7.2002 of this Court, petitioner could not operate his fishing right, but on 2.9.2002 the aforesaid order was stayed by the Apex Court. So, once this Court's Order was stayed by the Apex Court, there was no impediment on the part of the petitioner to continue his fishing right. If at all there was any restraint either by the authorities or anybody else he should have immediately approached this Court or the Ape Court for necessary orders. That was, however, not done and only after the lease period was over, he filed the present writ petition mainly seeking for quashing of the impugned auction notice dated 30.5.2003 and allowing him to operate his fishing right.

6. To repeat with, petitioner lost only two months to operate of his fishing right because of this Court's Order which was ultimately stayed by the Supreme Court. So, at best he can be allowed two months more to operate his fishing right.

7. In view of discussions made above, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the authorities will put the aforesaid reserved for auction on 1.10.2003. From today till 22.9.2003, the petitioner shall be allowed to operate his fishing right.

8. The petition is accordingly dispose of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Ramesh Kumar vs Union of India (Uoi), Through Betwa River Boa... Same Subject Commercial Same Judge R.K. Dash and ;Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.

Commercial