Mahendra Kumar Vs. Vth A.D.J. 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. orderrakesh tiwari, j.1. heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. in short the facts of the case are that the petitioner landlord moved an application under section 12 read with section 16(1)(b) of the u. p. act no. 13 of 1972. it appears from the record that on 4.3.1999 an application was moved by the respondent no. 3 tenant that since the landlord accepts him as a tenant, therefore, the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings under section 12/16 of act no. 13 of 1972.3. the trial court vide order dated 14.7.1999, rejected the application dated 4.3.1999 holding that he does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceedings, which was challenged before the revisional court. the respondent tenant challenged the aforesaid order vide revision application no. 83 of 1999 under section 18 of the act. the vth additional district judge, bijnor, vide impugned order dated 18.10.2000 allowed the revision filed by respondent no, 3 against order dated 14.7.1999 of the trial court, aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the same in this petition.4. after hearing learned counsel for the parties it appears that the petitioner is said to have given the shop in dispute to respondent no. 3 for a period of three months without any allotment. the rent control inspector submitted a report dated 25.4.1998 that the shop in dispute comes within the preview of the act no. 13 of 1972 as such the allotment order was necessary.5. it is settled law that no person can acquire the status of a tenant without there being a lawful and valid allotment order in his favour. the application moved by respondent no. 3 on 4.3.1999 that since the landlord accepts him as a tenant, therefore the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding under act no. 13 of 1972 was rightly rejected.6. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the.....