Mohd. Anwar Khan Vs. Harish Chandra and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....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. .....given in the said order dated 18.11.2005.7. pursuant to the said order dated 24.1.2006, the case is listed today before the court under chapter xii, rule 4 of the rules of the court with the office report dated 27.3.2006, inter alia, stating that requisite steps for issuance of notice by registered post a.d. pursuant to the said order dated 18.11.2005, read with the said order dated 24.1.2006, have not been taken by the learned counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned substitution application.8. the case has been taken up in the revised list.9. learned counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned substitution application is not present.10. even though the case is listed today under chapter xii, rule 4 of the rules of the court, requisite steps for issuance of notice on the aforementioned substitution application pursuant to the said order dated 18.11.2005, read with the said order dated 24.1.2006, have not been taken.11. in the circumstances, the court has no option, but to dismiss the aforementioned substitution application for want of prosecution under chapter xii, rule 4 of the rules of the court.12. civil misc. (substitution) application no. 72804 of 1998 is,.....

Judgment:

ORDER

S.P. Mehrotra, J.

1. By the order dated 18.11.2005, passed on Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 72804 of 1998, notice was directed to be issued to the defendants-respondents on the said application. Ten days' time was granted to the applicants in the aforementioned substitution application for taking requisite steps for issuance of notice by Registered Post A.D.

2. Further direction was given to supply a copy of the aforementioned substitution application to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The case was, thereafter, listed before the Court on 24.1.2006 with the office report dated 23.1.2006, inter alia, stating that the learned Counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned substitution application had not taken steps.

4. On 24.1.2006, Sri Rajesh Dwivedi, holding brief for Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned substitution application submitted that copy of the said application had been served on the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in compliance with the direction given in the said order dated 18.11.2005.

5. However, he further submitted that on account of omission on the part of the Office of Sri Radhey Shayam, steps for issuance of notice by Registered Post A.D., could not be taken, and in the circumstances, he prayed for three weeks' further time for taking requisite steps, as per the directions given in the said order dated 18.11.2005.

6. The Court, thereupon, passed an order dated 24.1.2006, granting three weeks' further time for taking requisite steps, as per the directions given in the said order dated 18.11.2005.

7. Pursuant to the said order dated 24.1.2006, the case is listed today before the Court under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court with the office report dated 27.3.2006, inter alia, stating that requisite steps for issuance of notice by Registered Post A.D. pursuant to the said order dated 18.11.2005, read with the said order dated 24.1.2006, have not been taken by the learned Counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned substitution application.

8. The case has been taken up in the revised list.

9. Learned Counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned substitution application is not present.

10. Even though the case is listed today under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court, requisite steps for issuance of notice on the aforementioned substitution application pursuant to the said order dated 18.11.2005, read with the said order dated 24.1.2006, have not been taken.

11. In the circumstances, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the aforementioned substitution application for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.

12. Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 72804 of 1998 is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court.

13. It may be mentioned that the aforementioned substitution application has been filed consequent to the death of Mohd. Anwar Khan (plaintiff-appellant).

14. In view of the dismissal of the aforementioned substitution application for want of prosecution, the second appeal at the instance of the said Mohd. Anwar Khan (plaintiff-appellant) stands abated.

15. The said Mohd. Anwar Khan was the sole plaintiff-appellant.

16. Consequently, the second appeal stands dismissed as having abated.