Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 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. anjani kumar, j.1. petitioner, by means of present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, challenges the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the contesting respondent.2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties. the grievance of the petitioner is that his father died during the service tenure on 14.5.2002 and he has applied immediately thereafter for an appointment under dying-in-harness rules, but his application has been rejected by the order impugned in the present writ petition. a perusal of the impugned order demonstrate that according to the g.o. dated 6.12.1973, read with g.o. dated 20.1.1999, in case any of the family members of the deceased is already in the employment of the categories specified in the g.o. aforesaid, then further incumbent is not entitled for the benefit of dying-in-harness rules and that is why the application of the petitioner has been rejected. learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to reply the statement that his mother is already in the employment of nagar nigam, aligarh as sweeper. in this view of the matter, in my opinion, the order impugned in the present writ petition does not suffer from any error of law, therefore, no interference is required.3. for the reasons stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. however, the parties shall bear their own costs.