Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

.....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; 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. janardan sahai, j.1. by the impugned order the petitioner's candidature for training in special b.t.c. course, 2001 has been rejected on the ground that the b.ed. certificate obtained by the petitioner is from chaudhary charan singh university, meerut correspondent course.2. shri manu saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the circular of the university dated 19.5.1999 in which it is provided in paragraph 3 that examination in the correspondence course and regular examination is on the basis of the same question papers and in paragraph 5 it is stated that b.ed. degree in respect of both the courses are similarly recognised. he also relies upon a decision in the case of karan pal singh v. rajya shaikshik anusandhan evam prashikshan parishad, lucknow and anr., 2001 (1) esc 215 : (2001) 1 uplbec 753, by which the controversy is covered and in which reference has been made to other decisions and it has been held that the order rejecting the candidature on the ground that the candidate has obtained b.ed. degree in correspondence course is not valid.3. learned standing counsel does not propose to file any counter affidavit.4. in view of the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 25.11.2001 is quashed and the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.