constitution of india, 1950 - article 226--central excise act, 1944--section 35-f--petitioner challenges the order of commissioner cce, for his order of partially waiving the condition of pre-deposit.;waiver of pre-deposit--excise duty of rs. 2,25,857 and a penalty of rs. 50,000--levied by ac for wrongly availing modvat credit, partially waived by the commissioner - 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.....orderm.c. agarwal, j.1. this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india is directed against an order dated 31-3-1999 passed by the commissioner, customs and central excise (appeals), ghaziabad whereby in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to section 35f of the central excise act, 1944, he has partially waived the condition of pre-deposit.2. i have heard shri a.p. mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and shri surya prakash, learned counsel for the respondent.3. excise duty of rs. 2,25,857 and a penalty of rs. 50,000 has been levied on the petitioner by the asstt. commissioner, central excise who has found that the petitioner has wrongly availed modvat credit. the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the commissioner which is pending and in which the impugned order has been passed. section 35f requires the adjudicated dues to be deposited before the appeal can be entertained but the proviso confers power on the appellate authority to waive the condition of pre-deposit on such condition as it thinks fit if the condition of pre-deposit is likely to cause undue hardship to the appellant. it is in exercise of that power that the learned commissioner has partially waived the condition of pre-deposit and directed that only a sum of rs. 1 lac towards the duty and rs. 10,000 towards the penalty be deposited within 15 days.4. having heard the learned counsel for the parties, i find that the order passed by the commissioner is quite reasonable and no interference in exercises of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution is called for. however, in case the petitioner has not already complied with the order, it is permitted to comply with the same by the 20th of may, 1999. the writ petition is disposed of.