Hari Prakash Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge and ors.

Hari Prakash vs ivth Additional District Judge and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Jul 06, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491471

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/491471
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.U. Khan, J.
Decided On: Jul 06, 2004
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 8125 of 1985
Subject: Tenancy;Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

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: Tenancy;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hari Prakash

Advocate P.K. Sinha, Adv.

Respondent

ivth Additional District Judge and ors.

Advocate None

Legal References

Reported In: 2005(1)ARC50

Excerpt

.....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. - on the basis of material brought on record as well as absence of material which could be brought on record by respondent no......contention of respondent no. 2 was that petitioner was having alternative commercial accommodation for running a business in premises no. 12/132. r.c. and e.o. on the basis of material brought on record as well as absence of material which could be brought on record by respondent no. 2 held that petitioner was having no commercial accommodation in house no. 12/132. according to r.c. and e.o. petitioner was only carrying on business on footpath in front of house no. 12/132. r.c. and e.o./additional city magistrate (v), kanpur through order dated 24.8.1984 passed in case no. 373 allotted the shop in dispute bearing no. 12/62 gwaltoli, kanpur in favour of the petitioner. the revisional court interfered in the pure finding of fact and held that petitioner was carrying on business from the accommodation no. 12/132. regarding contrary finding recorded by r.c. and e.o. revisional court held that this finding is not supported by cogent evidence. even if this observations correct it is beyond the purview of revisional jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the courts below in assessment of evidence. the revisional court outrightly allotted the building in dispute to respondent no. 3.4. in my opinion judgment and order passed by the revisional court is patently erroneous in law and liable to be set-aside.5. accordingly, writ petition is allowed. judgment and order of the revisional court dated 24.8.1995 is set-aside and impugned order passed by r.c. and e.o. dated 24.8.1984 is restored.

Full Judgment

S.U. Khan, J.

1. Heard Sri P.K. Sinha learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for respondent No. 2 even though the list has been revised.

2. This writ petition by allottee tenant is directed against judgment and order dated 24.5.1985 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Revision No. 231 of 1984 through which allotment order in favour of the petitioner passed by R.C. and E.O. dated 24.8.1984 has been set-aside and shop in dispute has been allotted to respondent No. 2. For the allotment of the shop in dispute only petitioner and respondent No. 2 were applicants. Landlord before R.C. and E.O. filed an affidavit giving his consent for allotment in favour of the petitioner of the shop in dispute. Copy of the said affidavit is Annexure 6 to the writ petition.

3. Initially shop in dispute was allotted in favour of the petitioner by R.C. and E.O. on 16.8.1982 against which respondent No. 2 filed a revision, which was allowed, and the matter was remanded. After remand R.C. and E.O. again allotted the shop in dispute in favour of the petitioner through order dated 24.8.1984. True copy of the said order is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The main contention of respondent No. 2 was that petitioner was having alternative commercial accommodation for running a business in premises No. 12/132. R.C. and E.O. on the basis of material brought on record as well as absence of material which could be brought on record by respondent No. 2 held that petitioner was having no commercial accommodation in house No. 12/132. According to R.C. and E.O. petitioner was only carrying on business on footpath in front of house No. 12/132. R.C. and E.O./Additional City Magistrate (V), Kanpur through order dated 24.8.1984 passed in case No. 373 allotted the shop in dispute bearing No. 12/62 Gwaltoli, Kanpur in favour of the petitioner. The Revisional Court interfered in the pure finding of fact and held that petitioner was carrying on business from the accommodation No. 12/132. Regarding contrary finding recorded by R.C. and E.O. Revisional Court held that this finding is not supported by cogent evidence. Even if this observations correct it is beyond the purview of revisional jurisdiction to correct the errors committed by the Courts below in assessment of evidence. The Revisional Court outrightly allotted the building in dispute to respondent No. 3.

4. In my opinion judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court is patently erroneous in law and liable to be set-aside.

5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order of the Revisional Court dated 24.8.1995 is set-aside and impugned order passed by R.C. and E.O. dated 24.8.1984 is restored.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2004 Same Parties Hari Prakash vs ivth Additional District Judge and ors. Same Subject Tenancy;Civil Same Judge S.U. Khan, J.

Tenancy;Civil