Som Datt Shukla Vs. District Inspector of Schools 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. .....the parties sand perused the records.2. by means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the relief of payment of salary, which has been denied by the district inspector of schools, jaunpur vide order dated 21st december, 1991.3. the brief facts of this case are that a permanent vacancy arose in arya vidyalaya higher secondary school, leduka, district jaunpur for the post of principal due to retirement of the earlier principal. the petitioner being seniormost teacher in the institution was promoted as principal of the institution under chapter-ii, regulations 2 to 4 of the u.p. intermediate education act read with rule 9 of the u.p. secondary education service commission act, 1983. the seniority of the petitioner was challenged before the d.i.o.s. by two other teachers of the institution. the district inspector of schools has held that the petitioner being seniormost teacher in the institution has rightly been appointed as officiating principal in the institution. however, he shall not be paid the salary of the post of principal, but shall be paid the salary of l.t. grade.4. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case in smt. ram rati v. state of u.p. and ors., (1987) 1 uplbec 1009. in this case the same question has considered by the division bench of this court. in para 5 of the judgment it has been held by this court that if the vacancy of the principal does not exceed for more than thirty days, then the seniormost teacher may only look after the work and if the vacancy of a principal exceeds for more than thirty days, then the seniormost teacher is entitled to be promoted and is entitled to salary of principal.5. the petitioner was worked as principal from 21.12.1991 to 30.6.1996 in the vacancy of the principal i.e., he has worked for more than thirty days and as such he is entitled to get the salary for the post of principal.6. in view of the facts and the circumstances stated above, the writ petition is allowed. respondent no. 1 is directed.....