Mahendra Kumar Vs. Naresh Mehra

Mahendra Kumar vs Naresh Mehra

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Jan 07, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491701

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/491701
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.P. Mehrotra, J.
Decided On: Jan 07, 2004
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 247 of 2004
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

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
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 21(1) and 22; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahendra Kumar

Advocate Vivek Chaudhary, Adv.

Respondent

Naresh Mehra

Advocate None

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 21(1) and 22; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2005(1)ARC267

Excerpt

.....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. .....application dated 25.7.2003 and its supporting affidavit has been filed as annexure no. 3 to the writ petition.5. it further appears that against the said amendment application, the petitioner filed objections, copy whereof has been filed as annexure no. 4 to the writ petition.6. by the impugned order dated 18.11.2003, the said amendment application (paper no. 37 ga) filed on behalf of the respondent was allowed on payment of cost of rs. 250/-.7. thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.8. i have heard sri vivek chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.9. from the above narration of the facts, it is evident that the order dated 18.11.2003 impugned in the present writ petition has been passed on the said amendment application (paper no. 37 ga) filed on behalf of the respondent during the pendency of the said p.a. case no. 7 of 2001. the said order dated 18.11.2003 is evidently an interlocutory order. it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 18.11.2003, in case, the final decision in the said p.a. case no. 7 of 2001 goes against the petitioner, and the petitioner challenges such final decision in an appeal under section 22 of the act.10. in the circumstances, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 18.11.2003, i am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order at this stage.11. in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.

Full Judgment

S.P. Mehrotra, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 18.11.2003 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut allowing the amendment application (Paper No. 37Ga) filed in P.A. Case No. 7 of 2001.

2. The dispute relates to an accommodation, the details whereof are given in the Release Application referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as 'the disputed accommodation.'

3. From the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act') against the petitioner for the release of the disputed accommodation. The said Release Application was registered as P.A. Case No. 7 of 2001. Copy of the said Release Application has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition.

4. During the pendency of the said P.A. Case No. 7 of 2001, the respondent filed an application dated 25.7.2003 (Paper No. 37 Ga), interalia, praying for being permitted to make amendment in the said Release Application. Copy of the said application dated 25.7.2003 and its supporting affidavit has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition.

5. It further appears that against the said amendment application, the petitioner filed Objections, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition.

6. By the impugned order dated 18.11.2003, the said amendment application (Paper No. 37 Ga) filed on behalf of the respondent was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 250/-.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

8. I have heard Sri Vivek Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

9. From the above narration of the facts, it is evident that the order dated 18.11.2003 impugned in the present Writ Petition has been passed on the said amendment application (Paper No. 37 Ga) filed on behalf of the respondent during the pendency of the said P.A. Case No. 7 of 2001. The said order dated 18.11.2003 is evidently an interlocutory order. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 18.11.2003, in case, the final decision in the said P.A. Case No. 7 of 2001 goes against the petitioner, and the petitioner challenges such final decision in an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act.

10. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 18.11.2003, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the said order at this stage.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2004 Same Parties Mahendra Kumar vs Naresh Mehra Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge S.P. Mehrotra, J. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent an...

Tenancy